On Baptism

“Canon 1. If anyone shall say that the Baptism of John had the same force as the Baptism of Christ: let him be anathema.

“Canon 2. If anyone shall say that true and natural water is not necessary for Baptism, and therefore shall distort into some metaphor those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ, ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’: let him be anathema.

“Canon 3. If anyone shall say that in the Roman Church, which is the mother and teacher of all Churches, there is not true doctrine concerning the Sacrament of Baptism: let him be anathema.

“Canon 4. If anyone shall say that Baptism which is given even by heretics in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, with the intention of doing what the Church does, is not true Baptism: let him be anathema.

“Canon 5. If anyone shall say that Baptism is free, that is, not necessary for salvation: let him be anathema.

“Canon 6. If anyone shall say that one baptized cannot, even if he wills, lose grace, however much he may sin, unless he is unwilling to believe: let him be anathema.

“Canon 7. If anyone shall say that through Baptism itself those baptized are made debtors only of faith alone, but not of observing the whole law of Christ: let him be anathema.

“Canon 8. If anyone shall say that those baptized are free from all the precepts of Holy Church, whether written or handed down, in such a way that they are not bound to observe them unless they shall have willed to submit themselves to them of their own accord: let him be anathema.

“Canon 9. If anyone shall say that men are to be recalled to the memory of the Baptism received in such a way that they understand all vows which are made after Baptism to be invalid by force of the promise already made in Baptism itself, as though through them both the faith which they professed and Baptism itself were disparaged: let him be anathema.

“Canon 10. If anyone shall say that all sins which are committed after Baptism are either remitted or made venial by the recollection and faith alone of the Baptism received: let him be anathema.

“Canon 11. If anyone shall say that true and rightly conferred Baptism must be repeated for him who denied the faith of Christ among unbelievers when he is converted to Penance: let him be anathema.

“Canon 12. If anyone shall say that no one is to be baptized except at that age at which Christ was baptized or at the very point of death: let him be anathema.

“Canon 13. If anyone shall say that infants, because they do not have an act of believing, are not to be numbered among the faithful after receiving Baptism, and therefore are to be rebaptized when they shall have reached the years of discretion; or that it is better that their Baptism be omitted than that, not believing by their own act, they be baptized in the faith of the Church alone: let him be anathema.

“Canon 14. If anyone shall say that infants baptized in this manner, when they have grown up, are to be asked whether they wish to ratify what their sponsors promised in their name while they were baptized; and that, when they respond that they are unwilling, they are to be left to their own judgment and meanwhile are not to be compelled to the Christian life by any other penalty except that they be restrained from receiving the Eucharist and the other Sacraments until they repent: let him be anathema.”

Cf. Instruction on Baptism of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 23 June 1830; C. 484, 648.

“To your inquiry We respond thus: the priest whom you signified to have ended his last day without the water of Baptism, because he persevered in the faith of Holy Mother Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, We unhesitatingly assert to have been freed from original sin and to have attained the joy of the heavenly fatherland.” Innocent III, chapter Apostolicam, 2, De Presbytero non baptizato.

“…We therefore approve the Baptism of infants; if they shall have died after Baptism before committing sins, we confess and believe that they are saved. We believe that in Baptism all sins are remitted, both that original sin contracted and those which have been voluntarily committed.” Profession of faith prescribed by Innocent III to the Waldensians returning to the Church, Epistle, 4 Ides of May 1210.

“The souls of those who, after receiving Sacred Baptism, have incurred no stain of sin at all…are immediately received into Heaven.” Confession of faith of Michael Palaeologus.—The same is contained in the same words in the Decree of Union of the Council of Florence, in the Bull Laetentur caeli of Eugene IV, and in the Profession of Faith for Orientals prescribed by Urban VIII and Benedict XIV.

“43. The first effect of baptismal grace is to cause us to die to sin, to such an extent that the spirit, heart, and senses have no more life for sin than a dead man has for the things of the world.” Proposition of Pasquier Quesnel condemned by Clement XI.

That the Greeks ought not to baptize those baptized by the Latins was established by Innocent III around the year 1216, chapter Licet Graecos, last, De Baptismo et eius effectu.

The Holy Roman Church “says and preaches that those who fall into sins after Baptism are not to be rebaptized, but obtain pardon of their sins through true Penance.” Confession of faith of Michael Palaeologus proposed to him by Clement IV in the year 1267 and offered by him to Gregory X at the Second Ecumenical Council of Lyons in the year 1274.

“Baptism, Confirmation, and Order cannot be repeated without sacrilege.” Tridentine Profession of Faith. The same is contained in the same words in the Profession of Faith for Orientals prescribed by Urban VIII and Benedict XIV.

“You asked whether those infants are to be regarded as Christians who, being at the point of death, because of a lack of water and the absence of a priest, were smeared by the simplicity of certain persons upon the head, breast, and between the shoulders by sprinkling saliva as Baptism. We respond that, since in Baptism two things are always necessarily required, namely, the word and the element, according as the Truth says concerning the word, ‘Going into the world,’ etc., and says likewise concerning the element, ‘Unless a man,’ etc., you ought not to doubt that those do not have true Baptism in whom not only both of the aforesaid things but even one of them is omitted.” Innocent III, year 1250, chapter Non ut, 5, De Baptismo et eius effectu.

“The Sacrament of Baptism, which is consecrated in water at the invocation of God and the undivided Trinity, namely, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, when rightly conferred upon both infants and adults by anyone in the form of the Church, avails unto salvation.” Fourth Lateran Council, year 1215, chapter 1, Definition against the Albigensians and other heretics.

“1. Is one validly baptized with water which, although it wholly retains its liquidity, nevertheless exhales a great and very unpleasant stench?—2. Given the validity of Baptism with such water, and when other good water enriched with sacred chrism is not available, is it better to use this putrid water than pure and natural water not enriched with chrism?

“Response. Baptisms conferred with corrupted water were valid, although illicit outside a case of necessity; and in a case of necessity natural water is to be preferred, but provision must be made for the renewal of the water of the baptismal font according to the Roman Ritual.” Holy Office, 17 April 1839.

“Many physicians in hospitals or elsewhere, in a case of necessity, are accustomed to baptize infants, especially in the womb of the mother, with water mixed with corrosive bichloride of mercury (in French, chloride de mercure). This water is generally composed by a solution of one part of this mercuric chloride in one thousand parts of water, and a draught of this aqueous solution is poisonous. The reason why they use this mixture is lest the mother’s womb be affected by disease.

“1. Is Baptism administered with water of this kind certainly or doubtfully valid?—2. Is it lawful, in order to avoid every danger of disease, to administer the Sacrament of Baptism with water of this kind?—3. Is it lawful to use this water even when pure water can be employed without any danger of disease?

“Response. To the first: Provision will be made in the second.—To the second: It is lawful where a true danger of disease is present.—To the third: Negative.” Holy Office, 21 August 1901.

“There exists a Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council of 12 July 1794: ‘A fetus baptized upon the crown of the head in the womb is to be rebaptized conditionally after birth.’ Theologians today give as the reason that it cannot be certain that the water truly touched the head of the infant, although the reason presented by Saint Thomas, part 3, question 68, article 11, no longer has force: that, generally, the body of the infant cannot in any manner be washed with water before it is born from the womb.—It is asked: If, in some particular case, a truly skilled and upright physician should attest that, by a very perfect method, more perfect than that which is now employed, the water without doubt touched the head of the infant in the womb, must the infant again be baptized conditionally after birth?—Response. Let the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council of 12 July 1794 be observed.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 16 March 1891.

“If it is certain that someone was baptized in such a way that the water in no manner touched a principal part of the body, but only the clothing, he is to be baptized absolutely; but if there is probable doubt that it touched him, he is to be baptized again conditionally.” Holy Office, 27 May 1671.

“In a case of necessity, can Baptism be administered to dying infants by signing their forehead or another principal part with a sponge imbued with water, without the water flowing over it, from fear that the parents may perceive the matter, since they have opposed it and watch the Missionaries at close quarters?

“Response. In a case of true and extreme necessity, when the death of the child is imminent and the Missionaries can have no other occasion to visit him, and the parents oppose Baptism, the Missionaries can, indeed must, employ the proximate and remote matter, however doubtful, since assistance, even uncertain, for the spiritual regeneration of the child must prevail over the danger of the invalidity of the Sacrament. Therefore the manner of administering Baptism described can and must be employed in the case of the aforesaid necessity, and not otherwise; and the Missionaries are admonished to cause some part of the water to run over the head, if possible, and insofar as it cannot flow over the head, let it flow at least over some principal member of the child’s body. But those who shall have been doubtfully baptized in this manner, if they recover, are to be baptized again conditionally.” Holy Office, 8 November 1770; C. 502.

“If anyone shall immerse a child in water three times in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, Amen, and shall not say: ‘I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, Amen,’ the child is not baptized.” Alexander III, chapter Si quis, 1, De Baptismo et eius effectu.

“27. At one time Baptism conferred under this form was valid: ‘In the name of the Father,’ etc., with these words omitted: ‘I baptize you.’” Proposition condemned by Alexander VIII.

“We are baptized only in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and not in the names of Archangels or Angels, as heretics, or Jews, or even demented Gentiles do.” Anathemas of Pope Damasus, no. 24.

“Can the Baptism which is administered by Chaldean priests to males with the word eemdat, placed in their Ritual, which has the signification of the present imperative, namely, ‘Let such a one be baptized,’ and the signification of the past, namely, ‘Such a one has been baptized,’ be sustained, presupposing in the one baptizing an understanding of the said word in the past tense?

“Response. 1. Baptism conferred through a verb of the past tense to signify a past action, and not also the action which is exercised by the minister at the time when he baptizes with the invocation of the Most Holy Trinity and the ablution, immersion, or sprinkling of natural water, is not true Baptism.

“2. Nevertheless, Baptism conferred through a verb indifferent to the past indicative and the present imperative would be true if the one baptizing used it for the present imperative, provided that the other things are right, namely, the intention, immersion in water, ablution, or sprinkling, with the express invocation of the Most Holy Trinity.

“3. The same is to be said when the minister, using a verb indifferent as above, thinking nothing about the past or the present, would nevertheless have the virtual intention of using that word in the best manner in which he can, even if he believed the word signifying or expressing the act which is exercised by the minister to be of the past tense, provided that he retained the intention of doing what Christ instituted or the Church observes and the Christian people observe, and of not binding the signification of the form to his private belief.

“4. If the one baptizing used a verb of the past tense to signify the act which is exercised by the minister himself while he baptizes, and the other required things were present, it would be Baptism if among that nation or clergy there were a usage of taking that past-tense word to signify a present action.

“5. It is also Baptism if anyone, from ignorance of the language, in mangling the words without the intention of introducing error or heresy, should pronounce the past word for the present, if there is so great a similarity between the past and present words that a lapse from one word into the other is easy, and prudent men commonly judge that the one baptizing supposed the past word to have been corruptly pronounced for the present and, from the word pronounced, conceive the present action to be sufficiently signified.

“6. Nevertheless, in order to remove every ambiguity or occasion of error in the administration of so necessary a Sacrament, the Chaldeans are to be admonished henceforth, when they baptize, to use a verb of the present indicative or at least of the imperative; or, if they wish to use a verb indifferent to the past and the present, let them take it in the signification of the present.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 27 March 1631.

“The form of Baptism of the schismatic Armenians, which is contained in their Rituals as below, having been reported, namely: ‘My hand now baptizes in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit’; or: ‘Let my hand now baptize in the name of the Father, let my hand now baptize in the name of the Son, let my hand now baptize in the name of the Holy Spirit,’ the Sacred Congregation declared the said form of Baptism true and lawful.” Holy Office, 8 September 1633.

“Is Baptism administered by heretics with the following form valid: ‘I baptize you in the name of the Father, I baptize you in the name of the Son, I baptize you in the name of the Holy Spirit’?—Response. Baptism conferred with the stated form is valid.” Holy Office, 11 January 1882.

“In the Congregation of Wednesday, 31 July last, after the doubt proposed by the Vicar Apostolic of Western Tonkin concerning the validity of the baptismal formula, ‘Ego te baptizo in nomine Patri, Firii et Firitui Sancti,’ had been examined, the Most Eminent Cardinal Inquisitors General issued the following decree, approved on the same day by the Holy Father: Those baptized with this form are not to be disturbed; the catechists are to be duly instructed.” Holy Office, 3 August 1889.

“A certain infant was baptized at home. The layman baptizing pronounced the form thus: ‘En te baptismo en nome do Padre e do Filho e do Spirito Sancto’ [I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit]. Must such a Baptism be repeated conditionally because of the defect of pronunciation in en te baptismo?—Response. The Baptism in question is valid and therefore is not to be repeated even conditionally.” Holy Office, 13 May 1817.

“Concerning Baptism, from omission of the pronoun te in its conferral, which you report to have happened often because of the ignorance of the Koreans, it is evident that the Sacrament was invalid and therefore is to be renewed.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 11 September 1841.

“A certain woman bore four children, whom she herself baptized, saying in the vernacular language: ‘I will to minister to you the Sacrament of the Baptism of sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.’ I therefore ask whether Baptism thus conferred is valid, or whether it must be repeated conditionally as doubtful, or finally whether it is null and therefore to be conferred again absolutely?—Response. The Baptism was invalid and therefore Baptism is to be conferred absolutely.” Holy Office, 23 June 1840.

“Is Baptism conferred upon infants with this condition valid: ‘If you wish to be baptized, I baptize you,’ etc.; and what is to be done toward those who, with such a condition appended, were baptized by certain women—namely, are they to be baptized again absolutely or conditionally? “Response. Baptism conferred under the stated condition is valid; nevertheless, that condition is to be wholly omitted henceforth.” Holy Office, 12 June 1850.

“Baptism is necessary for salvation and therefore, if danger of death is imminent, is to be conferred at once without any delay; and when conferred by anyone and at any time with due matter, form, and intention, it is valid.” Profession of Faith for Orientals prescribed by Urban VIII and Benedict XIV.

“You indeed intimated that a certain Jew, being at the point of death, when he was among Jews alone, immersed himself in water, saying: ‘I baptize myself in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.’ We respond that, since there ought to be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as is gathered from the words of the Lord saying to the Apostles, ‘Go, baptize all nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,’ the aforesaid Jew is to be baptized again by another, so that it may be shown that he who is baptized is one, and he who baptizes another. Also for signifying this, etc.” Innocent III, chapter Debitum, 4, De Baptismo et eius effectu.

“That also which Holy Church uniformly does throughout the whole world concerning those to be baptized We do not contemplate with an idle gaze. When either infants or young people come to the Sacrament of regeneration, they do not approach the font of life before the unclean spirit is driven from them by the exorcisms and exsufflations of clerics, so that it may then truly appear how ‘the prince of this world is cast out’ (John 12:31), and how ‘the strong man is first bound’ (Matthew 12:29), and thereafter ‘his vessels are plundered’ (Mark 3:27), transferred into the possession of the Victor, who ‘leads captivity captive’ (Ephesians 4:8) and ‘gives gifts to men’ (Psalm 67:19).” Celestine I, Epistle 21 to the Bishops of Gaul concerning the errors of the Semi-Pelagians, year 431, chapter 12.

“Where a baptismal font is not permitted, let baptismal water duly blessed be reserved in some more fitting and movable vessel.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 23 February 1660.

“According to other decrees, and especially in a case of Lucca on 12 April 1755 and in a case of Orvieto on 7 December 1844, it judged that the response should be: Baptismal water in parishes is to be blessed on the Saturdays of Easter and Pentecost, notwithstanding any contrary custom whatsoever, which must be wholly eliminated.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 13 April 1874, San Ippolito.

“It has been judged good that the Decrees which follow, issued by the Second Synod of Pondicherry with respect to baptismal water, be extended to all the Vicariates of the East Indies.

“1. The Missionary shall preserve consecrated water in some fitting place and vessel in the church where he ordinarily dwells and shall employ it in the conferral of Holy Baptism; he shall do the same in churches in which he dwells for a notable part of the year.

“2. When a case of necessity occurs, he shall use the faculty of preparing enriched water outside Holy Saturday and the Vigil of Pentecost.

“3. In places which he visits for the purpose of administering the Sacraments, he shall use consecrated water when he can easily carry it with him on journeys.

“Furthermore, the Most Eminent Fathers willed to communicate to all Vicars Apostolic the Decree given to the Vicar Apostolic of Tonkin on 10 February 1806: ‘Missionaries are wholly bound, in conferring Baptism, to do all things according to the prescription of the Roman Ritual, even in that part which regards the sacramentals and the use of the water reserved for that purpose in the baptismal font. But where it would be of grave inconvenience or danger to preserve water blessed by the prescribed rite, in that case it shall be lawful for Missionaries, or for anyone else who shall be suitable for conferring this Sacrament according to the opportunity of the times, to use common water, especially if it has been blessed, in place of the water of the baptismal font, which cannot be had except with grave inconvenience or danger.’” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 8 September 1869, to the Vicars Apostolic of the Indies.

When baptismal water is not available, blessed water according to the formula in the newer editions and in the Appendix of the Roman Ritual is to be employed when this can be done; otherwise natural water is to be employed. Holy Office, 22 June 1833.

“The Vicar General of N. sets forth that, on Thursday in the Supper of the Lord, during the consecration of the oil of catechumens, both the Bishop and the fifteen priests, through complete inadvertence, omitted to breathe upon the oils.… It is asked: 1.º Can the Bishop acquiesce?—And insofar as negative, 2.º What is to be done?—Response. To the first: Affirmative.—To the second: Provision was made in the first.” Holy Office, 19 June 1889; A. S. S., vol. 24, pp. 503 f.

“Must Baptism be administered with the sacramentals when there is opportunity, or can they be omitted in order to avoid the abhorrence of the Japanese for the anointing, exsufflation, and use of saliva?—Response. Such salutary rites of the Church are wholly to be observed, and the fastidious who abhor them are to be considered unworthy to be admitted within the Church. But the priests who, as they object, rely upon these reasons ought to observe that by those very reasons heretics defend their own errors against the Catholic Church.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 7 September 1626.

“Whether in China evangelical ministers, at least for the present, can abstain in the Sacrament of Baptism from applying the holy oil of catechumens to women, spittle to the ears, and salt to the mouth? Furthermore, can they also refrain from administering to the same women the Sacrament of Extreme Unction? The reason for doubting is that the Chinese are moved by great jealousy concerning their wives, daughters, and other women, and will take scandal from actions of this kind.—Response. The sacramentals are to be employed in the Baptism of women, and Extreme Unction is to be conferred upon women; nor does the motive expressed in the doubt suffice for the Missionaries, insofar as it lies with them, to abstain from these things. Care must therefore be taken that such salutary rites and ceremonies be introduced and observed, and that the Missionaries administer them with such circumspection and instruct the people with such teachings that they may be freed from every suspicion concerning their honor.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 12 September 1645, Dominican Missionaries in China; C. 596.

“Must all the sacramentals be employed in the Baptism of adult women? Does it suffice to confer upon women petitioning only the Sacrament of Extreme Unction? Must it even be denied to those petitioning when inconveniences and dangers to the whole of Christianity are prudently foreseen to be future? The reason for doubting is the incredible modesty of women among the Chinese, their jealousy, and their praiseworthy flight from every association with men—not only from meeting but even from sight; in which matter, unless great caution is employed by the Missionaries, an immense scandal is given to the Chinese, and the whole of Christianity could be exposed to most evident danger.—Response. From a grave proportionate necessity, certain sacramentals can be omitted in the Baptism of women, and even the Sacrament of Extreme Unction itself can be omitted.” Holy Office, 23 March 1656, Missionaries of the Society of Jesus in China; C. 597.

“Does the precept and mandate…concerning the observance of the responses and resolutions made on 12 September 1645 in the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith subsist and remain in its force?—Response. The Decree of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith given on 12 September 1645, according to those things then set forth in the doubts, is in its force and was not circumscribed by the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office issued on 23 March 1656; rather, it was wholly preserved, as it stands, according to the questions, circumstances, and all things expressed in the said doubts, just as the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office issued as above on 23 March 1656 declared that it was to be observed according to the questions, circumstances, and all things expressed in them.” Holy Office, 13 November 1669, Dominican Missionaries in China; C. 599.

“1.º Because of one singular case, is it lawful absolutely and universally to abstain from administering the oil of catechumens to adult women? For it seems to conflict with the Decree of the Sacred Congregation.—2.º The Missionaries judge and unanimously hold that, in order to avoid the calumnies of the pagans, it is very expedient that the sacramentals of Baptism be conferred upon adult women not with a finger but with a little brush. Nevertheless, the good pleasure of Our Most Holy Lord is desired.—Response of the Qualifiers of the Holy Office. To the first: It is not lawful to abstain.—To the second: It was answered elsewhere that the common usage of the Church is to be observed.” 1674, Father Navarrete.

“We strictly prohibit that the sacramentals be omitted in baptizing either children or adults of whatever sex and condition; rather, let them all be employed openly, and especially saliva, salt, and exsufflation, which the Catholic Church received from Apostolic Tradition and, because of the hidden mysteries of the divine goodness toward us in these sacred ceremonies, has preserved holily and inviolably; the Decree of the Sacred Universal Roman Inquisition of the year 1656, made for China because of diverse reasons and circumstances, by no means standing in the way.” Benedict XIV, Constitution Omnium sollicitudinum, 12 September 1744; C. 603.

“Let them see, however, lest perhaps those causes of fear which are everywhere alleged for omitting in the administration of Baptism the ceremonies prescribed by the Roman Ritual be empty or slight; when those ceremonies happen to be omitted for true and grave causes, they shall take care to supply them at the first possible time. For rites of such great weight and such antiquity, and most necessary for commending reverence toward the Sacrament, are not neglected without grave sin.” Benedict XIV, Constitution Inter omnigenas, 2 February 1744.

“Outside a case of urgent necessity or outside an imminent danger, can a priest lawfully simply wash infants or adults while omitting all the ceremonies of Baptism?—Response. He cannot. Nevertheless, not only can an imminent danger of death be a lawful cause for omitting the solemnities of Baptism, but also any reasonable and grave cause which impedes the administration of those solemnities, as, for example, if time is wholly lacking, if danger from pagans is imminent, if the priest neither has nor can conveniently have oil of catechumens, sacred chrism, blessed salt, and the other things necessary for performing the same solemnities. In these cases, however, the Missionary is to be admonished that, if he can employ not all but only some of the ceremonies of Baptism, he is to employ them; and afterward, when time and a suitable occasion are present, he is bound to supply in a church or oratory the same ceremonies, either all or those which he omitted.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 21 January 1789.

“The Pastor acted wrongly by baptizing with a violet stole and by anointing a child in danger outside the church even with the oil of catechumens. For in a case of necessity, according to the prescription of the Ritual, all those things which precede Baptism are to be omitted and are afterward to be supplied in the Church, to which the child is to be presented when he recovers.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 23 September 1820, Galacuritana and Calceatensis.

“1.º In Baptism to be conferred at home because of imminent danger of death, with the ceremonies which precede Baptism omitted according to the rubric of the Roman Ritual, those which follow Baptism can be employed.” “2.º In a case of infirmity and impossibility of employing all the ceremonies, they can and are bound to use those ceremonies which they can use.” Holy Office, 10 April 1861; C. 598.

“At the petition of the Most Reverend Lord Bishop of Annecy that, by Apostolic permission, the use of the Sacred Oils blessed in the preceding year be permitted in all the parishes of his diocese up to, but not including, the Saturday before Pentecost, lest at that time the Rectors or Vicars, whose ministry the Christian faithful need, be absent from their own parishes, the Sacred Congregation of Rites judged that the response should be: The Pastor shall take care that a priest, or a cleric constituted in Sacred Orders if possible, receive the new Sacred Oils. But if some impediment still exists, the same Pastor, either personally or through another priest, shall bless the font without the infusion of the Sacred Oils, which shall be done privately at a suitable time; unless he must baptize someone, for then he shall infuse the old Oils in the solemn blessing itself. And it commanded that it be observed thus.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 31 January 1896, Annecy.

“Can a priest who, while blessing the baptismal font on Holy Saturday, cannot mix the Holy Oils into the blessed water, either because he lacks them or because of another lawful cause, nevertheless bless the font on that day, deferring the mixing of the Holy Oils to another day; or is he bound to omit the whole blessing of the font on that day?—Response. Affirmative to the first part; negative to the second; and let the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites of 12 April 1755 in the case of Lucca be communicated. Pastors who were unable to receive the Holy Oils before the blessing of the font can afterward place them privately and separately into the water.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 5 March 1816, for China.

“While the calamities of civil war continued in the Kingdom of Spain, it happened that the Most Reverend Bishop of Orihuela, in the preceding year 1836, was unable to consecrate the Sacred Oils on Thursday in the Supper of the Lord for the solemn blessing of the baptismal fonts to be performed in the parish churches on the following Holy Saturday; nor were the Pastors able to obtain the same Oils from neighboring Bishops, since, because of the common troubles, nearly all episcopal Sees were bereft of their own Pastor, so that, communications having been interrupted, the flock was separated from the Pastor, the children from the parent, and the Church from the Bishops, not without great detriment to the salvation of souls. Placed in straits of this kind, the prebendary Pastors of the Diocese of Orihuela advanced diverse opinions among themselves; and, some denying, very many thought that the solemn blessing of baptismal fonts could be performed using oils consecrated in the preceding year. Amid this variety of opinions and judgments, they adopted the plan of having recourse to this Sacred Congregation of Rites, so that they might follow a certain rule in a matter of such great moment; and therefore they most humbly proposed the following doubts to be resolved, namely:

I. Whether such a blessing (of the baptismal font on Holy Saturday) ought to be performed with the chrism and oil of the preceding year; or whether the infusion of chrism and oil should rather be omitted until those recently consecrated are received?

II. Whether, in the solemn Baptism of infants, water of this kind is to be used—blessed, indeed, with the other ceremonies of the Missal, but without consecration, or the mixing of the sacred chrism and oil—or rather water consecrated in the preceding year, which is preserved for this purpose?

III. Whether, supposing that baptismal water was blessed with the old oils because those recently consecrated were not available, it ought to be poured into the sacrarium as soon as the new oils are received, and other water then blessed with these according to the ceremonies of the Roman Ritual; or whether that water ought to be preserved and used until the blessing on the Vigil of Pentecost, as in the Missal?

IV. Whether, in solemn Baptism, infants are to be anointed with the oil and chrism of the preceding year while those recently consecrated are not available; or whether this ceremony is to be omitted and afterward supplied when the new oil and new chrism are received?

Response. To I. Affirmative to the first part; negative to the second.

To II. Negative to both; but a new blessing of the font must be performed with the oils of the preceding year, or as provided in the first part of the preceding doubt.

To III. Negative to the first part; affirmative to the second.

To IV. Affirmative to the first part; negative to the second.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 23 September 1837, Orihuela.

“The due diligences having been made, if new oils are not available, a missionary can, by a privilege of Clement VIII, use the old oils for four years and beyond.” Holy Office, 14 February 1704; C. 486, 487.

“May Your Eminences deign to permit us, in the conferral of Baptism, to use water blessed indeed according to the rite commanded in the Roman Ritual, but without the sacred oils mixed into it. For it often happens not only that a quantity of water sufficient for the number of those to be baptized cannot be carried, but also that the sacred oils are lacking, by the use of which new water could be blessed.

“Response. Negative, except in a case of necessity; and let the missionaries conduct themselves according to the instruction of Saint Charles Borromeo (in part 2 of the fifth diocesan Synod). Behold the said instruction: ‘But if within the year that water should happen to become corrupted because of the length of time or another cause, the Pastor shall pour it into the sacrarium near the font and shall immediately cleanse the font; and indeed, if he is in the city, he shall go to the metropolitan church, or, if in the diocese, to the principal parish church, from which he shall receive baptismal water in his own clean vessel and carry it secretly to the parish church, where he shall pour it into the font as soon as possible; and he shall also add to the baptismal water brought as much pure, clean, and fresh water as will be sufficient. He shall do the same also if the baptismal water should in any manner have diminished during the year.’” Holy Office, 30 January 1765.

Concerning Baptism to be conferred in private houses, in the Response of the Sacred Congregation of Rites of 27 April 1877, Ascoli, it is said that the Bishop “ought altogether to take care, prudently, however, and cautiously, to remove the abuses which have crept in concerning this matter; and he should bring it about that infants are brought for Baptism according to the prescription and common practice of the Church.” And concerning the custom of administering Baptism at home, the Sacred Congregation of the Council, having examined the matter, judged on 20 January 1894 that the response should be: Let the Roman Ritual be observed, saving the exceptions which the Bishop, for reasonable causes, shall judge ought to be conceded according to his prudent discretion.

“1. Whether, in those places where there is no church or common oratory, it is lawful for a priest solemnly—that is, employing all the ceremonies and prayers prescribed in the Roman Ritual—to baptize the children of Christians in their private houses? 2. Whether it is lawful to baptize solemnly in private houses where there is indeed a church, but so distant that parents are unwilling to have their infants carried to it lest some harm come to them from the inclemency of the weather, something the Annamites fear beyond measure?

“Response. To the first: It is not only lawful but obligatory.—To the second: Lest there be a departure in this matter from the most holy institutions of the Church, the missionary ought to employ every care to cause the parents to withdraw from this unreasonable opposition of theirs; but if he accomplishes nothing by his persuasions and admonitions, he will then be able to persuade himself that the matter has been reduced to a case of necessity. For it will be impossible to baptize these infants when the parents, under whose authority they are, resist. Therefore, it will be lawful to confer Baptism upon these infants outside the church and in private houses, or wherever the parents permit, with the sacred rites and ceremonies omitted, yet with the intention of supplying them in the church as soon as this is permitted. But if it is foreseen that the parents of the infants will not permit their infants to be brought to the church for the ceremonies to be supplied even in the course of time, it will then be better that the rites and ceremonies prescribed by the Roman Ritual be employed in the private houses themselves at the time Baptism is conferred. For it will be better to omit the praiseworthy custom of celebrating Baptism in a church—which concerns only greater becomingness and reverence toward this Sacrament—than for baptized children to be deprived of the considerable spiritual goods which flow down upon them from the sacred ceremonies instituted by the Church and employed over them.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 21 January 1789.

“In places of the missions where Catholics not rarely dwell far from churches or public oratories—for example, ten or twenty geographical miles distant from them—and the transportation of infants at a tender age across so great a distance is exposed to great dangers and inconveniences, is it lawful there for a missionary who has been called to baptize these infants solemnly in private houses, or, outside danger of death, to administer Baptism without ceremonies?—Response. Affirmative; that is, Baptism in the case can be administered in private houses, the customary rite of the Church being observed.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 4 February 1871, to an Apostolic Vicar, doubt 3.

If the person bringing a boy to be baptized is altogether unwilling for him to be baptized unless the name of some impious person is imposed, it is not therefore lawful to defer Baptism; rather, the boy is to be baptized with the name of some Saint added in a low voice. Holy Office, June 1883; C. 605.

The Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith responded on 30 April 1808: “Baptism in the Latin Church must be administered in the Latin language according to the Roman Ritual; nevertheless, nothing prevents all those things which pertain to the Sacrament of Baptism itself from being explained in the vernacular language.” On 9 May 1879 the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office rescripted to the Apostolic Vicar of Western Cochinchina that “the practice can be retained” of making the interrogations first in Latin and immediately translating them into the vernacular language, so that the neophytes might understand them and the sponsors might answer them in the same language. Likewise, the Pater and Credo were recited in Latin by the priest administering Baptism, while they were recited in the vernacular language by the neophytes or the godfathers or godmothers. For there was the greatest difficulty in teaching the Latin responses to the neophytes or faithful who could be godfathers or godmothers, because of the very great difference between the Latin language and the languages of the Far East.

The same Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition, on 23 August 1880, responded to the question: “Whether, in the conferral of Baptism, it is lawful to put the interrogations in the vulgar language, or at least to translate those interrogations, first put in Latin, afterward into the vulgar language, so that they may be understood by the adult to be baptized, or by the godfathers and godmothers if it concerns the Baptism of infants?” As regards the first part, it is not expedient; as regards the second, affirmative.

And the same Holy Office, on 23 August 1886 and 24 May 1882: “Baptism is always to be conferred in the Latin language. The interrogations, however, are to be made in the Latin language and repeated in the vernacular language.” “Whether sponsors in Baptism can recite the Pater and Credo in the vernacular language while the Pastor recites them in the Latin tongue?—Response. They can.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 30 December 1881, Urgell, to the tenth; cf. M. E., vol. 7, part 1, p. 246.

“4. Which ceremonies and prayers ought to be observed when they are to be supplied with an adult Catholic validly baptized after birth, the ceremonies which, according to the Ritual, ought to precede or follow Baptism having nevertheless been omitted: namely, those which are assigned in the Ritual for the Baptism of adults, or those for the Baptism of infants? 5. Which of these ceremonies ought to be observed when an adult converted from heresy to the Catholic faith is to be baptized conditionally because of a founded doubt concerning the validity of the Baptism conferred upon him by a heretical minister?—Response. To the fourth: Let the ceremonies and prayers which are assigned in the Ritual for the Baptism of infants be observed. To the fifth: Insofar as the ceremonies are to be supplied and are judged to be supplied, as in the doubt, those which are prescribed for the Baptism of adults are to be supplied.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 27 August 1836, Rennes, to the fourth and fifth.

“Is it lawful to baptize conditionally, publicly, and with their ceremonies children lacking the use of reason who, having already been doubtfully baptized in Protestantism and without ceremonies, ought to be baptized conditionally?—Response. Baptism is to be administered conditionally and privately to the children of whom there is question, and with the ceremonies prescribed in the Roman Ritual.” Holy Office, 2 April 1879.

“In a certain parish of Hungary, it happened that a mother apostatized from the Catholic faith because the Pastor, adhering to the laws of the Church, rejected a heretical sponsor in baptizing her child. Since, according to a declaration of the Sacred Penitentiary of 10 December 1860, to the nineteenth, one notoriously under censure can be admitted to the office of sponsor if grave harms appear likely to threaten from his rejection, it is asked: Whether this declaration can also be extended to heretical sponsors; or whether, as some maintain, it is preferable in difficult cases of this kind to administer Baptism without a sponsor.—Response. Negative; and it is preferable that Baptism be conferred without a sponsor if it cannot be done otherwise.” Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, 3 May 1893. Cf. C. 604.

The cited declaration of the Sacred Penitentiary is of the following tenor:

“How ought Pastors to conduct themselves in celebrating the marriages of those who have notoriously incurred ecclesiastical censures?—Response. Care must be taken with all strength that those bound by ecclesiastical censures be reconciled with the Church in the due manner; but if they refuse to be reconciled, and grave evils seem likely to threaten unless the marriage is celebrated, the Pastor shall consult the Ordinary, who, having taken account of the matters and circumstances and having considered all the things handed down by approved authors, and especially by Saint Alphonsus, book 6, treatise 1, chapter 2, no. 54, shall declare those things which he shall judge more expedient in the Lord, the celebration of Mass, however, always being excluded.” Sacred Penitentiary, 10 December 1860.

“Likewise, how ought Bishops to conduct themselves if any of those mentioned above who are bound by a censure should present themselves in order to act as sponsor either in the Sacrament of Confirmation or of Baptism?—Response. As in the preceding.” Sacred Penitentiary, 10 December 1860.

“Can the Most Holy Eucharist be administered to those notoriously bound by a censure before they have, as is fitting, been reconciled with the Church?—Response. Negative.” Sacred Penitentiary, 10 December 1860.

Cf. On the Theological Virtues, no. 367; C. 604, 606.

“There have been submitted to the examination of the Supreme Sacred Congregation the doubts transmitted last year by Your Excellency to the Most Eminent Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, concerning the administration of the Sacrament of Baptism. The first of these asked whether, in a case of necessity—namely, when outside sponsors are altogether lacking—it is lawful for parents materially to hold their own offspring in solemn Baptism, or whether private Baptism is rather to be substituted for solemn Baptism in that case.

“Now, the nature of the question requires that the distinction between solemn and private Baptism be noted beforehand; for from this it can easily be inferred whether the mere lack of a sponsor requires that private Baptism be substituted for solemn Baptism. Private Baptism, therefore, as you well know, is said to be that in which no other ceremony prescribed by the Ritual is employed except the ablution of the person to be baptized, with the words of the form pronounced—those things, namely, which are necessary for Baptism by divine law. It is considered solemn, however, when those rites and ceremonies are employed which the Roman Ritual records as having been received and approved by Apostolic and most ancient tradition and as pertaining to its solemnity. Now, concerning the use of these rites, the Ritual itself admonishes that it is not lawful to omit them except for a cause of necessity, something the same Supreme Sacred Congregation confirmed by its own decree. For when it was asked in the year 1663, ‘Whether, in places where there is neither a parish church nor a baptismal font, Baptism can be conferred with all the solemnities and ceremonies customarily used by the Church,’ by a Decree of Wednesday, 28 February of the aforesaid year, it was prescribed that ‘they can, indeed they are bound, to use those ceremonies which they can use.’ Hence it is immediately clear that private Baptism is not to be substituted for solemn Baptism because some ceremony cannot be performed; for when this has been omitted, the others are to be fulfilled. These things having been established, although it can scarcely be conceived how, in deserted places where no one is present besides the parents of those to be baptized, ceremonies can be employed in Baptism, nevertheless, granting that some of them can be observed, the lack of a sponsor will not cause the other rites to have to be, or to be able to be, omitted and Baptism thus to be private; rather, the missionaries are bound to use those which they can. Indeed, the Sacred Congregation judges that in this case the presence of an outside sponsor can in a certain manner be supplied by the parents of those to be baptized. For nothing prevents them from taking the place of sponsors by materially holding their infants and answering the person baptizing on their behalf, yet without the prerogative of sponsorship truly and properly so called—namely, without the necessity of undertaking the burdens which an office of this kind carries with it, and of contracting the impediment of spiritual relationship, which prohibits the use of marriage. Thus it will come about that in the solemnity of Baptism all the rites are in some manner observed, and the formal presence of sponsors is supplied by the material presence of the parents. Nevertheless, by this you will understand that no one is in the least exempted from the burden of taking care, insofar as possible, that at least one sponsor properly so called be employed in solemn Baptism. For, from most ancient tradition, the presence of sponsors in Baptism has always been regarded as a principal ceremony in the Church of Christ, so that the signification of spiritual generation might be preserved through the sponsors and the religious education of the child might be placed in security by their pledge.

“Your Excellency further asked whether in some cases parents can lawfully designate as sponsor some absent person, although his consent is obtained after Baptism has been conferred. It is certainly indubitable that the office of sponsor can be discharged through an interposed person, or proxy. Nevertheless, in this case the laws require that the absent person accept the office of sponsor at a suitable time and give a mandate in favor of the one who must represent him in such a ceremony. The reason is that a sponsor must have a formal will to accept and, according to his ability, to discharge the burdens inherent in sponsorship. Therefore, you will well understand that sponsors cannot be designated in the manner proposed by you.

“Finally, the Sacred Congregation is of one mind with you in condemning the negligence of parents who commit the office of sponsor not to selected suitable persons but to anyone who happens to meet them when Baptism is to be conferred, even though they hold it as certain that he will never again see his spiritual son. Therefore, it most earnestly commends to you that the prescription of the Roman Ritual be faithfully observed also in this matter; this will be obtained if the parents, admonished concerning the gravity of the office, are induced to choose suitable sponsors whenever they conveniently can.

“These things, which I had to signify to you according to the mind and mandate of the Sacred Congregation, you will also communicate to the missionaries subject to you, so that, as circumstances require, they may conform themselves to them.” Instruction of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 15 September 1869. Cf. C. 601.

“Titius baptized his own son; he did so in ignorance, but fearing—with an empty fear—lest the child die; he baptized him in the presence of several women. His confessor reproved him, but absolved him. He now petitions the Sacred Penitentiary, without the knowledge of Titius, whom he left in good faith, for a dispensation from the impediment of spiritual relationship, so that he may seek and render the debt; in the year 1869. “Response. The Sacred Penitentiary grants to the Ordinary of the petitioner the faculty, either personally or through the petitioner’s own Pastor, if matters are so, after hearing his sacramental confession, to absolve the petitioner by Apostolic authority, with a salutary penance, from censures and ecclesiastical penalties, if he incurred any because of the foregoing, and from the guilt of incest, if perhaps after contracting spiritual relationship he did not abstain from the use of marriage; and to declare that the same petitioner, if no other canonical impediment stands in the way, can and ought to render the conjugal debt. And it grants the faculty mercifully to dispense with the same petitioner, by special and express Apostolic authority, concerning the supervening impediment of spiritual relationship set forth above, so that, notwithstanding it, he may lawfully and freely seek the conjugal debt from his wife. For the forum of conscience, yet so that the present favor, if and when there is need, may avail the petitioner and his wife also for the external forum.”—Scavini, book 3, no. 850.

Clement X, Brief Caelestibus et apostolicis, 12 September 1671, declares the following proposition to be “contrary to the sacred canons and the custom of the universal Church,” namely, that “all male religious and nuns can, without cause, without fault, and without the permission of their Superiors or Ordinaries, be sponsors in Confirmation.”

“By the words of the Ritual, ‘the sponsor holding the infant,’ absolute reception is not required, since ‘to hold’ is equally understood and it suffices if the sponsor, as is customary, joins himself by physical contact with the infant held in the hands of the person carrying him and accompanies the person carrying him to the infusion of the water; nor is it necessary that the godfather or godmother alone, with the person carrying the child removed, receive the infant into his or her own hands and present him to the priest to be baptized.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 21 June 1856.

“Spiritual relationship is contracted not by the proxy but by the mandator.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 20 April 1586; 15 March 1631; 13 September 1721; 11 June 1881. Cf. A. S. S., vol. 14, p. 411 ff.

“A certain Christian was sponsor for an infant baptized at home because of danger of death, whose mother he afterward took as wife. Because of the diverse opinions of theologians concerning the impediment of spiritual relationship, what is to be judged concerning this marriage?—Response. The Most Holy One is to be consulted for a matrimonial dispensation, insofar as there is need, concerning the impediment of spiritual relationship, and also for a sanation in the root.—At an audience on 4 May 1817, His Holiness remitted the petitions to the same Apostolic Vicar with the necessary and opportune faculties, so that he might absolve them from the excesses committed (provided they are worshipers of the orthodox faith, live under the obedience of the Holy Roman Church, and intend to live and die therein), and might dispense with the same concerning the stated impediment of spiritual relationship, some salutary penance nevertheless being imposed; notwithstanding this impediment, their consent having been cautiously renewed lest scandals arise, they may contract marriage anew validly and afterward be able to remain in it freely and lawfully; and he may decree legitimate the offspring already conceived, if there is any, and that to be conceived. But if either separation or scandals could reasonably be feared from this, then, the spouses having been left in good faith, His Holiness, from the plenitude of Apostolic power, benignly sanated in the root the marriage thus invalidly contracted by them, the names and surnames of the contracting parties and the dispensation obtained nevertheless being recorded in the secret book of marriages.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 18 March 1817.

“Is it necessary that the mystery of the Eucharist be explained to an adult to be baptized?—Response. Adults outside danger of death are, speaking in itself, bound to receive such explanation, unless some motive to the contrary is so pressing that the prudent missionary judges a delay until after Baptism expedient. As regards one dying, he is likewise bound, unless either time is lacking or so great a disturbance of mind is foreseen in him that it could withdraw him from receiving Baptism.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 10 May 1703; C. 552.

“1. It is not lawful to baptize an adult barbarian, rude and stupid, who does not believe explicitly in the Lord Jesus Christ; rather, the missionary is bound to instruct him concerning all those things which are necessary by a necessity of means, according to the capacity of the one to be baptized.—2. It is not lawful to baptize a sick barbarian if the missionary is morally certain that, according to the measure of his own capacity, he has not sufficiently understood the mysteries of the Christian religion explained to him, or does not sufficiently believe them, and promises that he will observe the commandments of that religion solely from a motive of not contradicting. But if the missionary prudently believes that the sick barbarian, when he says, ‘I believe and I will do,’ then truly believes sufficiently and seriously promises that he will observe them as above, he ought to be baptized. But if the missionary doubts about the foregoing, time is lacking to instruct him better, and danger of death is imminent, he ought also to be baptized conditionally.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 10 May 1703 and 23 August 1703, to the Bishop of Quebec; C. 551, 589.

“In the papers transmitted by Your Excellency to the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, it was set forth that a certain missionary is rather frequently called to confer Baptism upon dying adults who, although they profess that they would willingly receive the Baptism proposed to them, that they truly renounce the devil, believe in God, and repent of their past life, nevertheless, from the circumstances, leave the greatest doubt concerning the sincerity of dispositions of this kind. The aforesaid missionary, wishing to consult on the one hand the reverence of the Sacrament and on the other hand the eternal salvation of the sick person now about to die, confers Baptism under this condition, ‘if you are truly disposed,’ expressly intending not to baptize if good dispositions are absent. Hence it was asked: 1. Whether such a manner of conferring Baptism is lawful or not.

“It was further set forth that some of those sick persons, after receiving Baptism under such a condition, afterward survive and indeed sometimes recover entirely from their illness and can be more rightly disposed; and it was asked: 2. Whether those who survive and are more rightly disposed ought all indiscriminately to be baptized again, at least under this condition, ‘if you have not been baptized.’

“The Sacred Congregation of the Supreme and Universal Inquisition, to whose judgment these doubts were referred, a mature examination having been employed concerning them, commanded that a response be given by the present Instruction on Wednesday in August 1870.

“It is an established matter that three dispositions are required in an adult for the right reception of Baptism: namely, faith, repentance, and the intention of receiving it. Faith is indeed necessary, by which the adult ought to be sufficiently instructed, according to the measure of his own understanding, concerning the mysteries of the Christian religion and firmly to believe them. Repentance is likewise necessary, by which he ought to grieve over his sins and elicit an act either of contrition or of attrition. Third, the intention or will of receiving this Sacrament is necessarily required, and when it is lacking, the character of Baptism is not imprinted upon the adult. Faith and repentance, however, are required in the adult so that he may lawfully receive the Sacrament and attain the fruit of the Sacrament; but intention is necessary for validly attaining it, such that an adult who is baptized without faith and repentance is indeed baptized unlawfully but validly; and, on the contrary, one who is baptized without the will to receive the Sacrament is baptized neither lawfully nor validly. These things having been premised, it will be easy to recognize that the missionary in the proposed case did not conduct himself rightly when, in administering Baptism to a dying adult, he put on the same footing the dispositions required for Baptism to be lawfully administered and those necessarily required for it to be validly received. For in a doubt whether an adult near death is sufficiently instructed concerning the mysteries of the faith and sufficiently believes them, and in a doubt whether he sincerely repents of his past life, when the necessity of death presses, the Sacrament ought to be administered to him absolutely, without any condition. But in a doubt whether he truly intends to receive Baptism, if after a previous diligent examination there is still doubt concerning this intention, Baptism ought to be conferred under the condition, provided that he is capable of Baptism. Lest, however, a certain norm be lacking for a missionary of this kind, the Decree of the same Congregation of the Supreme and Universal Inquisition, issued on Thursday before His Holiness on 23 August 1703 concerning a question proposed by the Bishop of Quebec, is transmitted here annexed to Your Excellency. (Cf. here part 2, no. 2.) Furthermore, the missionary did not conduct himself rightly when, in conferring Baptism under a condition, he intended not to baptize if good dispositions were absent in the recipient of Baptism; for in the case the missionary ought to intend only to baptize insofar as the recipient is capable of Baptism, that is, sincerely wills to receive it.

“Finally, concerning the second doubt, it must be observed that Baptism is not to be repeated commonly and rashly, not even conditionally, and that it is lawful to use a condition only when there is a prudent and probable doubt whether someone was validly baptized, as is handed down in the Roman Catechism, part 2, On the Sacrament of Baptism, no. 57.

“But if the foregoing does not suffice to resolve the doubts of the missionaries, Your Excellency shall take care to set them forth to the Sacred Congregation, so that, all the circumstances having been weighed, they may be removed.” Instruction of the Holy Office, 6 June 1860, to the Apostolic Vicar of Zhejiang.

“Concerning children, however, because of the danger of death, which can frequently occur, since no other remedy can aid them except the Sacrament of Baptism, by which they are delivered from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred Baptism is not to be deferred for forty or eighty days, or another time, according to the observance of some; rather, it ought to be conferred as soon as it can conveniently be done, yet in such a manner that, when danger of death is imminent, they are baptized at once without any delay, even by a layman or woman, in the form of the Church, if a priest is lacking, as is more fully contained in the Decree for the Armenians.” Decree for the Jacobites, or Cantate Domino of Blessed Eugene IV.

“The Sacred Congregation most fully approved the custom of this mission concerning Baptism, about which you doubted, namely, that, in the absence of a priest, it is immediately administered by catechists or other approved laymen to infants even enjoying good health; for human life, especially that of infants, is exposed to continual dangers.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 11 February 1804, to the Apostolic Vicar of Cochinchina.

“Concerning the practice established by Your Excellency with regard to the Baptism of infants—to be conferred within ten days at the most, by priests if the opportunity is given, or by a catechist, but not by another person except in a case of necessity—the Most Eminent Fathers judged that the prescriptions of the Synod of Sichuan are altogether to be followed.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 11 September 1841.

From the Synod of Sichuan: “Furthermore, since in these regions there prevails the very unsafe custom that parents place newborn infants with themselves in the same bed, while on the other hand missionaries are able to traverse their districts only once a year, lest infants be in danger of dying without Baptism, as has already happened more than once, suitable men and women, but especially catechists, are to be specially instructed in each Christian community, who shall baptize newborn children even if they are not ill, the priest afterward supplying the ceremonies of Baptism when he shall have arrived; and the parents are to be admonished that they take care to have them washed with saving water as soon as it can conveniently be done. It is very prudent that they be washed within three days; but lest so necessary a Sacrament be delayed too long with danger to salvation, we establish eight days from the infant’s birth and command that it not be deferred beyond this limit.”

“It is to be urged that Baptism be administered as soon as possible; it can then be permitted that a midwife confer it when a danger is positively feared that the child will die during the time of the delay.” Holy Office, 11 January 1899. Cf. M. E., vol. 11, p. 261.

“Father Didacus of Varallo, who presided for many years over the missions of Tripoli, reported to this Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith that, not without grave detriment to souls, very many doubts had arisen among the ministers of the divine word in those regions concerning Baptism: whether and in what manner, amid the diverse circumstances both of persons and of danger, it is lawful for them—or even incumbent upon them as a duty—to relieve by the saving laver the necessity of unbelievers who cannot provide for themselves.

“The Sacred Congregation, having employed a diligent examination of these doubts, which were comprehended in ten chapters but further complicated by many incidental questions, easily recognized that they did not so much need any new ordinance or definition as a certain simple explanation of the common doctrine concerning the Baptism to be provided to the children of unbelievers. Proceeding from the ancient custom of the Church, this doctrine has very often been declared and confirmed by Decrees of the Sacred Congregations and Apostolic Constitutions, the substance of which Benedict XIV most recently comprehended in two Decretals and illustrated, according to the opportune variety of cases and circumstances, by divisions as by distinct lights. And from these, indeed, three documents chiefly present themselves for explaining more closely the subject matter pertaining to it, from which, in every doubt of this kind, sacred ministers ought to seek a norm for taking counsel and acting. They are these: 1. Outside imminent danger of death, it is not lawful, when the parents are unwilling or unaware, to baptize the infant children of those unbelievers who either live under their own laws or are subject to the command or dominion of Christians only civilly. 2. Nor are infant children of this kind to be baptized even when offered freely and spontaneously by their parents, if after Baptism they are to be left under the authority of their unbelieving parents. 3. Baptism is to be imparted to those same infants when brought into proximate danger of life, provided that this is done without scandal. These things will be plainly established from the Decrees to be presented below. But lest any place for doubt be left in applying this general doctrine to particular cases, the Sacred Congregation judged that each article of the questions proposed was to be answered by a corresponding response.

I. The first head of the questions embraces these three doubts. 1. Whether children of unbelievers who are insane from birth, concerning whom there is no hope that they will afterward enjoy any interval of reason, can lawfully be baptized. 2. Whether sacred ministers are bound to inquire about insane persons of this kind and to baptize them. 3. Whether personally or through others.

Response. As regards the first, the common opinion of the Doctors, with Saint Thomas as guide, part 3, question 68, article 12, is that persons insane from birth, in whom neither the present use of reason appears nor its future use is hoped for, are to be numbered among infants and, as regards the reception of Baptism, remain throughout their lives in the same case as children who are in proximate danger of death. For just as those children, who have not yet attained the use of reason, are unable to provide for themselves, so neither can those insane persons provide for themselves at any time of life, because, being perpetually insane, they never attain the use of reason. Therefore, insofar as that incapacity for reason is judged by a truly probable and prudent judgment, they can lawfully be baptized. Nor, as regards insane persons of this kind, does that reason have place which generally prevents the children of unbelievers from being lawfully baptized against the will of their parents: namely, that, in order to forestall perversion, they would have to be withdrawn from the care and authority of their parents, not without offense to the parents. This reason, I say, is not valid as regards the perpetually insane, whom their perpetual insanity removes from the danger of perversion and who can therefore be safely left in the care and authority of their parents. Sacred ministers must nevertheless conduct themselves cautiously and prudently, whether in seeking them out or in baptizing them, lest the hatred of unbelievers be aroused against the Christian religion and cruelty against the faithful.

As regards the second, since sacred ministers ought principally to have it proposed to themselves that they gain for Christ and the Church as many souls as they can, it is not to be doubted that, in seeking out and baptizing insane persons of this kind, they are bound to employ all that moral diligence which the nature of their own office demands in matters of the gravest moment, always employing that caution which the laws of Christian prudence prescribe for avoiding scandal.

Third, those devoted to the missions are bound to this either personally, insofar as they are not lawfully impeded, or through others, whose vicarious assistance they will employ most laudably precisely when they perceive that the salvation of the insane will be provided for more conveniently and safely through others than through themselves.

II. In the second doubt it is asked how ministers of the missions ought to conduct themselves toward the insane children of unbelievers whose insanity is not so senseless that they do not give some indications of reason, especially in those things which pertain to animal life; in them, namely, a certain weak force and faculty of reason manifests itself, such as appears in children of four or five years, and who therefore are not sufficiently able to comprehend the principal mysteries of faith. It is further asked whether ministers sin who, regarding insane persons of this kind as though foreknown to be lost, cast aside every care and solicitude concerning them. Response. Where a difficulty arises in judging the degree, as it were, of insanity, the matter must ultimately be reduced to investigating whether those concerning whom the question is raised possess such use of reason that they can know the distinction between moral good and evil, and therefore can make themselves guilty of fault by choosing evil. Hence a threefold case arises: either it is morally certain that they possess such a faculty; or it is morally certain that they do not possess it; or, finally, after sufficient examination, it remains doubtful and uncertain whether they possess it.

1. Therefore, if by a prudent judgment they are considered capable of sin, the rule prescribed by Saint Thomas, part 3, question 68, article 12, is to be used, in these words: “There are some who, although they are not of an altogether sound mind, nevertheless use reason to such an extent that they can consider their own salvation and understand the power of the Sacrament. Concerning such persons the judgment is the same as concerning those who are of sound mind, who are baptized when willing, but not when unwilling.” They are therefore to be brought to Baptism in the manner of adults. In this matter, the rules prescribed by the Church are altogether to be observed; since they are clearly explained in the Roman Catechism, there is no need to repeat them here.

2. If by a prudent judgment they are not considered capable of fault, like children who have not yet attained sufficient use of reason, a distinction must be used. Either this incapacity for reason is judged, also by a prudent judgment, to be perpetual, and they are to be baptized, as was said above in response to the first doubt; or there is some hope that the faculty of reason will afterward exercise itself more fully in them, and then a further distinction must be made. Either they are in proximate danger of death, and they are to be baptized, provided that this is done without scandal; or there is no danger of this kind, and more certain indications of reason are to be awaited, so that they may be brought to faith and Baptism in the manner of adults.

3. But if only doubtful signs are present, there will be place for the prudent rule supplied by approved Doctors, namely: if necessity is not pressing, a more convenient and fuller knowledge can and ought to be awaited; but if necessity is pressing, then in a doubtful case one must incline in favor of religion and the Christian faith and of the spiritual salvation of the one to be baptized.

Moreover, those who neglect persons of this kind as though they were already condemned and despaired of strive to conceal a shameful negligence with a still more shameful excuse. The number of the elect to be placed in supreme happiness is known to God alone, and it is an act of utterly insane temerity to arrogate this judgment to oneself: “For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been His counselor?” Romans 11. Let religious men rather consider this: that God does not will anyone to perish, but all to come to the knowledge of the truth, and that they themselves have been called to a share in that office which was entrusted by Christ to His disciples, that they should go and bear fruit, that they should act as ambassadors for Christ, and that they should serve and collaborate with Christ in procuring the salvation of men.

Therefore, it is nowhere lawful to neglect those insane persons; rather, with eyes and minds always attentive, provision must be made that, if they are in proximate danger of death, the minister baptize them with prudent caution employed; but if not, that he await opportune moments so that, when they have given sufficient indications of reason, he may duly prepare them in the manner of adults to receive Baptism.

III. Whether the ministers themselves, before deciding to provide or deny Baptism to insane persons of this second class, are bound, where it can be done without grave inconvenience, to refer the whole matter to the Bishops, Vicars, or Prefects of the missions and seek counsel and a norm of acting from them?

Response. Everyone, in discharging his office, is bound, insofar as possible, to forestall the danger of erring and to employ in this all the diligence which the gravity of the matter demands. Nothing, moreover, is so consonant with ecclesiastical discipline and the hierarchical order instituted by Christ in the Church as that inferiors be directed by superiors in discharging sacred offices. Therefore, when a case occurs in which a priest devoted to the missions remains uncertain in mind whether, with attention to the circumstances, it is lawful or not to administer Baptism, he is not to be considered to have sufficiently forestalled the danger of erring if, where it can conveniently be done, he neglects to approach his superiors and rejects the assistance prepared for him in their judgment, counsel, and authority.

IV. Where Bishops, Vicars, or Prefects are not present, ought one who labors in the missions to decide by his own counsel to baptize the aforesaid insane persons, a diligent examination first having been employed and the help of the Holy Spirit having been implored?

Response. Religious ministers in that case are indeed bound both to employ a diligent examination and earnestly to implore divine help. But let them remember that their diligence ought principally to be directed toward this: not that they fashion new rules for themselves, but that they do not err in applying the rules of the Church. What these rules are, as far as the proposed doubts are concerned, can be understood in part from what has already been said, and will become known in part from what is to be said.

V. Whether a minister would act lawfully who, after diligent examination, should secretly baptize those ambiguous insane persons, instruction having been omitted, with this or a similar condition employed: “If you are incapable of the hearing of faith, or are enveloped in the darkness of irremediable and invincible ignorance”; or, more simply: “If you are incapable of the instruction and doctrine necessary for adults before the reception of Baptism, I baptize you,” etc.?

Response. Nothing more apt for resolving this doubt can be adduced than that splendid statement of Saint Thomas, part 2 of the second part, question 10, article 12: “The custom of the Church, which must always be emulated in all things, has the greatest authority.” Induced principally by the authority of this custom, the Holy Doctor denied that it is lawful to baptize the children of unbelievers against the will of their parents, as is set forth in the Constitution Postremo mense, no. 6. Hence it is by no means astonishing that this doctrine of Saint Thomas was both commonly received by others and strengthened and confirmed by the judgments and decisions both of other ecclesiastical tribunals and of the Supreme Inquisition, as Benedict XIV testifies in the aforesaid Constitution Postremo mense, no. 5, and in the Constitution Probe, no. 10. The authority of this same custom is equally valid for excluding that formula of condition which is proposed to be added in administering Baptism. We find that by the custom of the Church the use of a condition in conferring Baptism has prevailed for approximately three causes: when it is prudently doubted whether Baptism previously conferred is valid or not; when necessity compels the use of doubtful matter; when it is doubted whether the subject is capable of Baptism, as in monstrous births, or, as in a difficult birth, when it is doubted whether the Sacrament can be effected by washing that part which alone can be washed. In a word: according to the custom of the Church, a condition is employed in Baptism when there is place for doubt whether something required for the validity of the Sacrament was or is lacking. But whenever it is certain that nothing of this kind is lacking, it has nowhere been heard that it is lawful for the minister, while performing the rite of Baptism, to add conditions of his own judgment by which the confection of the Sacrament would be impeded. Therefore, what Saint Thomas concluded in that first case must also be concluded here: that it is dangerous, contrary to the custom hitherto observed in the Church, to introduce this assertion anew. Wherefore sacred ministers must altogether abstain from employing the proposed formula and follow the norm prescribed for the second doubt.

VI. Whether ministers of the missions are permitted to do that which is said to have been proposed by Honoratus Tournely, who, after setting forth the opinion of certain theologians who think that all infant children of unbelievers can be baptized without the knowledge of their parents, adds, as is reported, that in such a case he would have recourse to the Holy See or to the nearer Prelates in order to seek an oracle; that, if this assistance were lacking, he would implore the help of the Holy Spirit and, under His guidance, adopt a plan of acting; and, finally, that in such a matter he would leave each one to his own opinion?

Response. The opinions of Doctors are to be measured according to the Decrees of the Church; the Decrees themselves are not to be bent according to the pleasure of those holding opinions.

Therefore, whatever Tournely or other private persons may have thought, there is here a firmer authority placed in the Constitutions of the Supreme Pontiffs and the Decrees of the Sacred Congregations, which now wholly deprive of every credibility that opinion which seems in some manner to be stirred up by this question and which generally establishes that it is lawful to baptize the infant children of unbelievers when their parents are unwilling or unaware. Indeed, Benedict XIV, in the Constitution Postremo mense, no. 7, proposes as fixed and ratified that it is unlawful to baptize the infants of Jews against the will of their parents, unless danger of death is pressing, as he afterward explains. And lest anyone should calumniously wish to make one thing of acting against unwilling parents and another of acting without the knowledge of parents, this empty and plainly fictitious distinction is rejected in the Constitution Probe, no. 10, where he approves the doctrine of Saint Thomas, by which he teaches that the infants of unbelievers can by no means be baptized without the consent of their parents. The Pontiff says that this doctrine is both commonly received and confirmed by the judgments of ecclesiastical tribunals.

For a plainer explanation of this doctrine, moreover, it will be worthwhile to append here especially three Decrees of the Sacred Congregation which were indeed indicated above, but which it was necessary to refer to this place so that the series of responses would correspond to the series of doubts. First, in the year 1705, on 18 February, when a response was given to the question of the late prelate Charles Maigrot in the Constitution Postremo mense, no. 8, “Whether infant children of unbelievers can be baptized against the will of their parents?” the following Response was issued: “The Most Eminent Fathers, having heard the opinion of the Lord Consultors, said that it is not lawful except at the point of death.” The second, in response to the petition of the Bishop of Quebec concerning infants whom their parents freely and spontaneously offer for Baptism, was answered on 4 May 1793: “It is not lawful if they are children of unbelievers and are to be left under their authority, nevertheless excluding imminent danger of death.” Consonant with this is another issued on 15 March 1770: “Outside danger of death, it is not lawful to confer Baptism upon those offered by two unbelieving parents whenever the same infants, after receiving Baptism, are to be left under the authority and education of those unbelieving parents.” Third, on 28 January 1637, in response to a doubt concerning the infant children of unbelievers placed in proximate danger of life, it was answered: “Baptism can be conferred upon infants who are placed with moral certainty at the point of death, provided that this is done without scandal.” From these Decrees are drawn those three general precepts which had to be touched upon at the beginning, so that a rationale and path might be prepared for resolving the doubts themselves, namely: 1. Except at the point of death, or in a morally certain danger of imminent death, it is not lawful to baptize infant children of unbelievers against the will or without the knowledge of their parents. 2. Nor is it lawful outside the same danger (since in the Decrees “point” and “danger” are used interchangeably) to baptize infants even freely offered by unbelieving parents if, after Baptism, they are to be left under the authority of their unbelieving parents. Nor ought the distinction which is customarily objected between material and formal perversion have force for weakening or evading this prescription. That great Pontiff Benedict was not ignorant of this distinction; nevertheless, without attending to it, he pronounces generally in the Constitution Postremo mense, no. 26, that grave danger of perversion in this matter is a thing of the greatest moment. And from the cited Decrees it is established that it is altogether to be forestalled. 3. Even at the very point of death, the infant children of unbelievers are indeed to be baptized, but in such a manner that scandal is avoided and, consequently, that some greater hatred of unbelievers against the Christian religion and cruelty against Christians are not aroused. Therefore, in every event let sacred ministers assuredly implore divine help, lest either forgetfulness of these Decrees ever seize them or they think it lawful to prefer their private judgment to them.

VII and VIII. Whether it is lawful to use the opinion set forth above at least when, with a plague raging, ninety out of one hundred children, as generally happens, perish; or when epidemic diseases of the worst character consume by far the greatest part of children before they attain the use of reason?

Response. Here the statement of Saint Thomas must be repeated concerning the very great authority which resides in the custom of the Church, which must always be emulated in all things and against which it is dangerous to introduce novelties. Devastations and pestilences were not lacking in the first ages of the Church, when Christians lived intermingled with unbelievers; nor on that account was it ever established as a custom that the most holy Pastors of the Church should baptize the children of the unbelievers among whom they lived against the will or without the knowledge of their parents. Jews live even now among Christians, even in the august City, and are permitted to live according to their own customs; nevertheless, the Supreme Pontiffs have never conceded that the infant children of Jews be baptized either openly or secretly, against the will or without the knowledge of their parents, for the reason that, when an epidemic plague is raging, very many more of these infants perish. From this it is easily understood that, as far as the present subject is concerned, a twofold kind of danger must be distinguished: namely, that common and indeterminate danger which threatens even healthy persons in those places afflicted by an epidemic disease; and another danger, proper and certain, in which are those infected by the wasting of the disease or who in any manner are brought into a present danger of life. The Constitutions of the Pontiffs and the Decrees of the Congregations, when they forbid the children of unbelievers to be baptized against the will of their parents except in danger of death, speak of this present danger which determinately affects the person to be baptized and which is sometimes expressed, as by a synonymous phrase, by the name “point of death.” They do not, however, speak of that common and indeterminate danger to which neither the word nor the notion of the point of death in any way applies.

It must next be observed that, although most infants are carried off by the force of the disease, nevertheless some always survive, either those whom the disease spares or those who overcome the disease. If, therefore, all infants are baptized indiscriminately, it follows that they remain under the care of unbelievers and are to be imbued with their depraved superstitions. And this is the very thing which the Decrees both of the Pontiffs and of the Sacred Congregations forbid to be done.

Nevertheless, in that devastation which deadly diseases sometimes bring especially upon barbarous regions, there will plainly be something upon which religious men may expend laudable labor and reap an immense fruit of their labors. They will accomplish much by baptizing those who, placed with moral certainty at the point of death, are, according to the cited Decrees, always to be baptized cautiously and prudently. In this matter they ought diligently to provide that no one of them perish through their want of care and negligence. Then, in those most calamitous times, it will sometimes be possible that, the parents having died and the inhabitants having been scattered, very many children lie cast away and abandoned, destitute of all human aid. In seeking out those wretched infants, religious men devoted to the missions will give a present and excellent manifestation of their charity: not that, after hastily baptizing them, they cast them aside again, but that they gather them in, assist them with paternal and pastoral aid, and take care that, whether they provide this according to their own means or through the assistance of outsiders to whom they can rightly entrust them, these children, separated from association with unbelievers, be instructed in the duties of the Christian life and at the same time in some honorable kind of labor or craft.

IX. Whether, with greater right, infant children of heretics or schismatics, who are customarily baptized with doubtful matter or form, can be baptized again conditionally when, namely, they are not yet capable of comprehending the speculative errors of their parents?

Response. The question is intricate and must be resolved individually by parts. For it is asked: 1. about administering Baptism to the infant children of heretics or schismatics; 2. about the cause for repeating Baptism conditionally; 3. about the use or faculty of reason in the child to be baptized.

As regards the first. It is indeed certain that the Church possesses the right to baptize the infant children of heretics or schismatics and to prevent them from being imbued with the errors of their parents; nor can any doubt be raised concerning this right of the Church. The hinge of the difficulty, therefore, turns upon this: what is to be done when the Church cannot exercise this right of hers or remove the danger which threatens those infants while they remain under the care and authority of their heretical or schismatic parents. Hence sacred ministers will not without reason be able to use the opinion of eminent theologians who judge: “It seems that the same is to be said in this case concerning a heretic and concerning any other unbeliever, if there is the same moral danger.” From this they conclude that, in order for a Catholic minister lawfully to furnish Baptism, it is necessary that he conceive a probable hope that a child of this kind, once baptized, can in due time be instructed in the true faith. But if he can have no such moral hope by any means, he should certainly rather abstain from Baptism, supposing that the child is not in extreme necessity, in which any other person can be baptized.

As regards the second. Wherever this is also added to the other perversities of heretics, that they employ doubtful matter or form for Baptism, this is assuredly sufficient cause why Baptism ought to be repeated conditionally. But in this matter complete credence is not to be given to any rumors whatsoever; rather, the rite by which the child was baptized is to be investigated diligently and solicitously insofar as it can be done; and then, if the validity of the prior Baptism remains doubtful, he is to be baptized again conditionally, provided that a case occurs in which, according to the doctrine above, Baptism is to be administered.

As regards the third. Some ambiguity lies hidden in that final clause: “when the children of heretics or schismatics are not yet capable of comprehending the speculative errors of their parents.” Here there is signified, somewhat obscurely, a more advanced age in which the adolescent, although he has already attained the use of reason, has nevertheless not yet progressed so far that he is able to recognize the subtle errors of his parents. Concerning such a child or adolescent it seems to be asked whether a Catholic minister can lawfully baptize him either absolutely or conditionally, with no mention made of those speculative errors, under the pretext that he is not yet sufficiently able to comprehend them. In a word, it is asked whether a child already possessing the use of reason, educated in heresy or schism and adhering to it, can lawfully be baptized without first being admonished concerning the errors of that sect with which he has already been imbued and being brought to detest and abjure that sect. The response is to be sought from those things which are prescribed in the Ritual and Roman Catechism concerning preparation for Baptism to be administered to adults, and which are everywhere explained by Catholic Doctors. The adult to be baptized petitions faith from the Church; therefore, he must be taught the principal heads of the Christian faith and profess that faith which the Holy Catholic Roman Church holds and professes, and promise due obedience to that Church and to her supreme head, the Roman Pontiff. Therefore, although the child concerning whom the question is raised is not yet able to inspect and penetrate the speculative errors of his parents, as it were, by his own understanding, he is nevertheless not permitted to be ignorant that that sect professes depraved errors condemned by the Church; and he must altogether abjure and detest both that sect and its errors and profess himself a Roman Catholic. Religious men who labor in the missions ought to consider that this office has been given to them: that they bring the sheep which have perished to the fold of Christ. But who would judge those to belong to the fold of Christ who adhere to sects which persecute the fold of Christ and bear a hostile mind against the Church like wolves? The Church is enlarged by the aggregation of those who acknowledge, hear, and honor her as mother and teacher; nor does she acknowledge as her own those who impiously refuse to acknowledge and revere the power given to her by Christ according to the faith and prescription of the Church herself.

X. Whether those devoted to the missions are bound under grave sin to employ labor and diligence so that they may become fit and equal to performing the offices concerning which there has thus far been discussion, lest they permit so many souls to perish who are condemned by their want of care and impatience with labor.

Response. There is no place here for doubt. It is certain among all that everyone is bound to employ whatever moral diligence he can in order to be rendered apt and suitable for discharging his offices. This obligation is the graver, the graver in moment are the offices which each person discharges. From this it is clear with how grave a fault that minister would bind himself through whose want of care and negligence, which may God avert, it should happen that even the least of the little ones for whom Christ shed His Blood should perish. Therefore sacred ministers ought principally to devote their diligence to this: that they acquire those aids of learning which are necessary for them duly to discharge their offices. They ought to seek these from approved authors, and especially from those who have treated matters pertaining to the missions, whom, since they are sufficiently well known, there is no need to enumerate by name in this place. Above all, however, let them never cease to look to the Decrees and Rescripts of the Apostolic See, confirmed by inviolable authority, which she willed to be for her Christian faithful the most certain guide and teacher, as of all saving truth, so of all true piety.” Hyacinth Gerdil, Bishop of Dibon; Instruction of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 17 August 1727.

“The Sacred Congregation wisely observed that the doubt concerning the administration of Baptism to infants recently born of heretical parents rested upon a false principle: namely, that it is not lawful to baptize them at home outside danger of death, but that it is lawful in a church if they are brought there to receive Baptism. But because from this false persuasion there threatens a danger of gravely transgressing not only ecclesiastical but also divine law, by which the subject to whom it is not lawful to administer Baptism is prescribed, it therefore ordered the present Instruction to be written and transmitted to the aforesaid Most Reverend Lord Apostolic Vicar, so that, when it has been communicated to the missionaries residing there, each may learn the true reason why the Apostolic See has repeatedly defined that it is not lawful to administer the Sacrament of Baptism outside danger of death to children born of heretical parents, and may in the future refrain from soliciting heretical parents to bring their children to the church to be initiated by Baptism.

“The Church indeed prohibits, in the sole Clementine constitution On Baptism, that, except at the point of necessity because of which access to the church cannot be had without danger on this account, infants be baptized at home unless they are the children of great princes. But by this law, by which the place of administering Baptism is prescribed, nothing is established concerning children born of heretical parents, who are otherwise known to be unable to be baptized by Catholics either at home or in a church if they are well. For by a divine and natural precept it is forbidden to give holy things to dogs and to cast pearls before swine; and among the mysteries of the Catholic religion, the Sacraments are especially holy and useful, through which the merits of the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated and all true justice either begins in us, or, having begun, is increased, or, having been lost, is repaired. It is not lawful to give these things to dogs, that is, to the profane, who, as soon as they are able by reason of age, are to despise them and corrupt them through their own fault. But no one fails to see that children born of heretical parents who are to be permitted to remain under the care and education of their parents, as soon as they have reached the age of discretion in which they can be masters of their own acts, will be imbued with the errors of their parents and will sacrilegiously abjure the Catholic faith which they ought to profess through sponsors in Baptism, to their greater condemnation and to the graver contempt of the Catholic Church in which they were regenerated. For this reason, therefore, it is not lawful to baptize them in infancy outside danger of death, and Catholic ministers who admit them to receive Baptism sin against the office of a faithful steward.

“Therefore, let missionaries in no way be moved to procure Baptism for the aforesaid children, although it will happen that they are perpetually deprived of this Sacrament through the error of their parents, who judge it by no means necessary for attaining eternal salvation. Indeed, Baptism cannot profit those who, having received the use of reason, will presently become apostates from the Catholic faith, nor does the holiness of the Sacrament permit it to be conferred upon them with manifest danger of profanation. But when danger of death is pressing, or the aforesaid children are affected by any defect of health from which they are prudently believed likely to die before attaining the years of discretion, not only is it lawful, but the missionaries ought solicitously to take care that they are regenerated by the Sacrament of Baptism in due time, not only in a church but also at home if their parents, with obstinate will, are unwilling to have them carried to the church. For then the proximate danger of perversion ceases, and provision is made for the eternal salvation of the infant by a necessary remedy, without fault, indeed even with merit, on the part of the minister. Whenever, however, it happens that Baptism is administered in the houses of heretics to their infants endangered as above, let them omit the solemnities which do not pertain to the substance of the Sacrament; for it has been provided by an ecclesiastical rule that they not be employed before heretics in their houses.” Instruction of the Holy Office, 21 January 1767; A. S. S., vol. 25, p. 252 ff.; C. 566.

Can children who are to be left under the authority of unbelieving parents be baptized if there is a founded hope that they can be instructed in the Catholic religion?—Response. “It is to be remitted to the prudent judgment and conscience of the missionaries (the Apostolic Prefect having been heard, if this can be done), who in the circumstances set forth can baptize children offered by unbaptized parents, provided that in each case it is not foreseen that there is any grave danger of perversion, and provided that it is not established that the parents offer their children for Baptism because of superstition.” Holy Office, 1867; C. 592.

“Children of unbelievers or of heretics are not to be baptized outside danger of death, even if offered by their parents, when they must remain under the authority of unbelieving or heretical parents and will not be educated in the holiness of the Catholic faith.” Holy Office, 26 August 1885. Diocesan Synod of Alba, year 1886, part 2, article 2, no. 13.

“It is lawful for a Pastor to baptize the infant of spouses, one of whom professes the Catholic faith, with the consent of either one, even if he knows that the other spouse, namely the heretic, will afterward take care that the infant be baptized by a heretical minister; but the Catholic spouse is bound to admonish the heretical spouse that the child has already been lawfully baptized.” Holy Office, 29 November 1672; C. 547, 557, 565.

“Generally speaking, those concerning whom it is doubted whether they were validly baptized are to be regarded as Christians. The Baptism is to be judged valid in relation to the validity of marriage.” Holy Office, 9 September 1868.

Negative doubts are not admitted, and therefore Baptism cannot be repeated. Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 30 September 1848; C. 652.

“In judging whether Baptism is to be repeated under a conditional form, neither excessive difficulty nor excessive facility is to be employed.” Instruction of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 23 June 1830.

“...Now, that the testimony of one suffices for proving Baptism is an ancient axiom of jurists, as is seen in the Gloss on chapter Nuper, at the word Unless under oath, On Witnesses and Attestations: ‘Sometimes, however, one person is rightly believed when there is no prejudice to anyone: for example, whether someone was baptized, or whether a church was consecrated; and when someone wishes to prove through his confessor that he performed penance.’ And in canon Placuit, at the word Let them testify, On Consecration, distinction 4: ‘Therefore the testimony of one is believed in Baptism and in the consecration of a church.’ This, however, is to be understood provided that faith can prudently be placed in the witness, whether male or female; or likewise if the person who baptized gives the testimony. For if he asserts that he himself administered Baptism to a Jewish infant, he would confirm by his own testimony not only a deed performed by him but also one most deserving of punishment. Infants brought to the Hospital of the Holy Spirit, the refuge of abandoned children, not rarely carry a paper suspended from their neck, upon which it is written that Baptism has already been conferred upon that infant. When We were still in minor orders and were discharging the office of secretary of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, the Pastor of the Holy Spirit asked what he should do in cases of this kind. The question was proposed in the Congregation on 18 December 1723, as the Thesaurus of Resolutions, volume 2, page 412, declares; but on 15 January 1724 it was thus rescripted: If the person who wrote the note were not unknown and faith could safely be placed in him, then the infant was to be regarded as baptized and was not even to be initiated by Baptism conditionally, as is openly clear in volume 3 of the aforesaid Thesaurus, page 2.” Benedict XIV, Constitution Postremo mense, 28 February 1747. “If the testimony concerning the Baptism conferred is from an uncertain person, in so grave a matter reliance cannot be placed upon the testimony of one unknown. Therefore the infant is then to be baptized again conditionally, even if he carries suspended from his neck a note concerning the Baptism received, as is done for exposed infants in certain places.” Sacred Congregation, 5 January 1724.

“...That generally and without discrimination, even with the addition of a condition, not everyone is to be rebaptized.... Conditional Baptism is permitted to be administered only to those concerning whom, after a diligent investigation has first been made, a grave and reasonable doubt of law or fact remains whether they otherwise received the Sacrament rightly. In this matter it will profit them to keep before their eyes what was handed down by Benedict XIV in his Institution 84 and in On the Diocesan Synod, especially book 7, chapter 6. Although it very easily appears that perhaps scarcely ever can one abstain from a diligent preliminary investigation of this kind without danger of injury to the Sacrament, nevertheless, all those things which are noted in the aforesaid letter by the missionary Boyer and confirmed by the testimony of Your Excellency concerning certain places of this vicariate having been maturely weighed and balanced, and with attention to the character of the catechists and faithful, such that an investigation or examination for recognizing or proving a valid or invalid conferral of Baptism either cannot be instituted at all, or would certainly be made fruitlessly and without any clarification of the doubt, the same Sacred Congregation declared that, in those circumstances and according to the matters set forth, and while those circumstances and no others continue, Baptism can be administered with a condition added, so that the salvation of souls may be placed in security.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 8 September 1869.

“1. Whether those baptized by heretics are indiscriminately to be baptized conditionally.—2. Whether at least those concerning whom it is not established in particular that they were validly baptized.—Response. To the first and second: Let the response issued by the Sacred Congregation of the Council on 27 March 1683 be given, namely, that they are not to be rebaptized unless there is a probable doubt concerning the invalidity of the Baptism.” Holy Office, 6 April 1859, Bishop of Haarlem.

“Whether Baptism ought to be conferred conditionally upon heretics who are converted to the Catholic faith, from whatever place they come and to whatever sect they belong.—Response. Negative; but in the conversion of heretics, from whatever place or whatever sect they have come, inquiry must be made concerning the validity of the Baptism received in heresy. Therefore, an examination having been instituted in each case, if it is discovered that Baptism was either not conferred or was conferred invalidly, they are to be baptized absolutely. But if, in view of the circumstances of the times or places, after the investigation has been completed, nothing is discovered either for validity or for invalidity, or if a probable doubt concerning the validity of the Baptism still remains, then they are to be baptized conditionally and secretly. Finally, if it is established that it was valid, they are to be admitted only to abjuration and profession of faith.” Holy Office, 21 February 1883; 20 November 1878; Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 23 June 1830. “Therefore, a threefold method of proceeding in reconciling heretics is distinguished: 1. If Baptism is conferred absolutely, no abjuration or absolution follows, because the Sacrament of regeneration washes away all things. 2. If Baptism is to be repeated conditionally, the procedure will be in this order: a) abjuration or profession of faith; b) conditional Baptism; c) sacramental confession with conditional absolution. 3. Finally, when the Baptism has been judged valid, only the abjuration or profession of faith is received, followed by absolution from censures.” Instruction of the Holy Office, 20 July 1859; Collectanea of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, no. 642 ff., 1689.

“As regards abjuration, however, the rule of Albizzi is to be followed, namely, that if it concerns adolescents who have attained the fourteenth year, only a profession of the Catholic faith is to be required from them before they are admitted to the Sacraments; but if it concerns those who have passed the fourteenth year of age, a formal abjuration of the sect to which they belonged is to be required.” Instruction of the Holy Office, 20 November 1878.

“...It is rather contrary to reason and removed from all piety, for the sake of preserving a certain empty integrity and modesty for the deceased mother, to condemn her living offspring to eternal death. Certainly it is not modesty or virtue from which so great an evil flows. Although, as We say, this extraction of the fetus from the womb of the pregnant and deceased mother is to be made known and urged, His Holiness nevertheless expressly cautions and prohibits missionaries from involving themselves in particular cases in commanding the operation, and much less in performing it. It will therefore be sufficient for missionaries to have made it known and to have taken care that laymen who apply themselves to surgical matters learn the method of performing it, and then, when the case occurs, to leave its practice to their burden and office.” Holy Office, 15 February 1760.