On Baptism

"1. Whether one is validly baptized with water which, although it wholly keeps its liquidity, nevertheless gives forth a great and very unpleasant stench? 2. Whether, with the validity of Baptism with such water posited, and another good water enriched with sacred Chrism not being had, it is better to use that putrid water than pure and natural water not enriched with Chrism? Resp. That Baptisms conferred with corrupt water were valid, although illicit outside the case of necessity; and in the case of necessity natural water is to be preferred, but provision is to be made by renewal of the water of the Baptismal Font, according to the Roman ritual." S. O. 17 Apr. 1839.

"A fetus, baptized in the womb upon the crown of the head, after birth is to be rebaptized again under condition." S. C. C. 12 July 1794.

"Whether it is necessary that the mystery of the Eucharist be explained to an adult to be baptized? Resp. Adults, outside the danger of death, speaking per se, are bound, unless such a motive urges to the contrary that delay until after Baptism is judged expedient by a prudent Missionary. As regards one dying, likewise they are bound, unless either time does not suffice, or such disturbance of mind is foreseen in him that it could distract him from the reception of Baptism." S. C. de P. F. 10 May 1703.

"1. It is not lawful to baptize an adult Barbarian, rude and stupid, not explicitly believing in the Lord Jesus Christ; but the Missionary is bound to instruct him concerning all those things which are necessary by 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 he has not sufficiently, according to the measure of his own capacity, understood the mysteries of the Christian Religion explained to him, or does not sufficiently believe them, and from the sole motive of not contradicting promises that he will observe the commandments of the same Religion. But if the Missionary prudently believes that the sick Barbarian, when he says, I believe and I will do, then really sufficiently believes, and seriously promises that he will observe as above, he must be baptized. But if the Missionary doubts concerning the aforesaid things, and time does not suffice to instruct him better, and the danger of death is imminent, he also must be baptized under condition." S. C. de P. F. 14 May 1703.

"Father Didacus of Varallo, who presided for many years over the Tripolitan missions, reported to this S. C. de P. F. that not without grave detriment to souls very many doubts had arisen among the ministers of the divine word of those regions concerning Baptism: whether and in what manner, according to the diverse circumstances both of persons and of danger, it is lawful for them, or even incumbent on them by duty, to come to the aid, by the saving laver, of the necessity of infidels who cannot consult for themselves.

After a diligent examination had been applied to these doubts, comprised under ten heads, but in addition entangled with many questions, as it were incidental, the S. C. easily recognized that they did not need so much any new sanction or definition as a certain simple explanation of the common doctrine, which, proceeding from the ancient custom of the Church concerning Baptism to be furnished to the children of infidels, has often in like manner been declared and confirmed by decrees of Sacred Congregations and Apostolic Constitutions, the sum of which Benedict XIV has most recently embraced in two Decretals, and, by opportune divisions according to the variety of cases and circumstances, has illustrated as by distinct lights. And from these indeed three documents especially are at hand more closely pertaining to the subject matter, from which, in every doubt of this kind, sacred ministers will have to seek the norm of taking counsel and acting. They are: 1. Outside imminent danger of death, it is not lawful, when parents are unwilling or unaware, to baptize the infant children of those infidels who either live by their own laws, or are subject to the rule or dominion of Christians only civilly. 2. Nor are infant children of this kind to be baptized, even when offered freely and spontaneously by the parents, if after Baptism they are to be left in the power of their infidel parents. 3. Baptism is thus to be imparted to the same infants brought into proximate danger of life, provided that this is done without scandal; all which things will plainly be established from the decrees to be brought forward below. But lest in the application of this general doctrine to peculiar cases any place for ambiguity be left, the Sacred Congregation judged that satisfaction must be made to the individual articles of the questions proposed by as many responses.

I. The first head of the questions comprises these three doubts. 1. Whether children of infidels who are insane from birth, concerning whom there is no hope that thereafter they will possess some interval of reason, can lawfully be baptized. 2. Whether sacred ministers are bound to inquire about insane persons of this kind, and to baptize the same. 3. Whether by themselves or through others.

Resp. As regards the first, the common opinion of the Doctors, with St. Thomas as leader, 3 p., q. 68, art. 12, is that those insane from birth, in whom neither a present use of reason appears nor a future use is hoped, are counted among infants, and as regards the reception of Baptism are in the same case through their whole life as children who are situated in proximate danger of death: for just as those children, who have not yet attained the use of reason, cannot consult for themselves, so neither can those insane persons at any time of life provide for themselves, because, as being perpetually insane, they never attain the use of reason. Therefore, insofar as that impotence of reason is judged truly by a probable and prudent judgment, they can lawfully be baptized. For as regards insane persons of this kind there is no place for that reason which generally stands in the way lest the children of infidels be lawfully baptized when their parents are unwilling, namely that for the sake of preventing perversion they would have to be withdrawn from the care and power of their parents not without offense to the parents: this reason, I say, does not apply as regards the perpetually insane, whom their perpetual insanity withdraws from the danger of perversion, and therefore they can safely be left in the care and power of their parents. Nevertheless sacred ministers will have to conduct themselves cautiously and prudently in either inquiring about or baptizing them, lest the hatred of infidels and cruelty against the faithful be stirred up against the Christian religion.

As regards the second, since it should above all be proposed to sacred ministers that they gain for Christ and the Church as many souls as they can, there is no room for doubt that, for inquiring about and baptizing insane persons of this kind, they are bound to provide all that moral diligence which the nature of their own office requires in matters of gravest moment: that caution always being employed which the laws of Christian prudence prescribe for avoiding scandal.

Third. To this those assigned to missions are bound either by themselves, insofar as they are not legitimately impeded, or through others, whose vicarious work they will employ most laudably especially when they have perceived that the salvation of the insane will be consulted more conveniently and safely through others than through themselves.

II. In the second doubt it is asked how ministers of the missions should conduct themselves toward the insane children of infidels whose insanity is not so stupid that they do not give forth some indications of reason, especially in those things which pertain to the manner of animal life, in which namely a certain weak force and faculty of reason betrays itself, such as appears in children of four or five years, and who therefore are not sufficiently able to grasp the principal mysteries of the faith. It is asked in addition whether ministers sin who, holding insane persons of this kind as if foreknown, cast away all care and solicitude for them.

Resp. Where a difficulty arises in judging, as it were, the degree of insanity, the matter is finally to be recalled to this, that it be explored whether those concerning whom the question is asked possess such a use of reason that they can recognize the distinction of moral good and evil, and therefore in choosing evil can render themselves guilty of fault. Hence a threefold case emerges: for either it is morally established that they possess such a faculty, or it is morally established that they do not possess it, or finally, after sufficient examination, it remains doubtful and uncertain whether they possess it.

1. And so, if by prudent judgment they are considered capable of sin, the rule which St. Thomas prescribes, 3 p., q. 68, art. 12, must be used, in these words: Certain persons exist who, although they are not of an altogether sound mind, nevertheless use reason to such an extent that they can think concerning their salvation, and understand the power of the sacrament: concerning such persons the same judgment is to be made as concerning those who are of sound mind, who are baptized when willing, but not when unwilling. These persons therefore are to be led to Baptism in the manner of adults. In this matter the rules which the Church has prescribed, and which, as being clearly explained in the Roman Catechism, it does not pertain to this place to repeat, must altogether be observed.

2. If by 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: for either that impotence of reason is judged, also by prudent judgment, to be going to be perpetual, and they are to be baptized, as was said above to the first doubt; or some hope underlies that thereafter the faculty of reason may more manifest itself in them, and then again a distinction must be made: for either they are situated in proximate danger of death, and they are to be baptized, provided that this is done without scandal; or no danger of this kind is present, and more certain indications of reason are to be awaited, so that they may be led to the faith and to Baptism in the manner of adults.

3. But if only doubtful signs are at hand, there will be place for the prudent rule which approved Doctors supply, namely: if necessity does not press, a more suitable and greater knowledge can and must be awaited; but if necessity presses, then in a doubtful case one must incline in favor of religion and of the Christian faith, and of the spiritual salvation of the one to be baptized.

Moreover those who neglect men of this kind as if already damned and desperate strive to cover shameful negligence with a more shameful excuse. To God alone is known the number of the elect to be placed in supreme felicity, and it is of wholly insane rashness to arrogate that judgment to oneself: For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor? Rom. 11. Let religious men rather think this, that God does not will anyone to perish, but all to come to the knowledge of truth, and that they themselves have been called into part of that office which was entrusted by Christ to his disciples, that they go and bring forth fruit, that they perform an embassy for Christ, and that in procuring the salvation of men they serve and collaborate with Christ.

Nowhere therefore is it permitted to neglect those insane persons, but with eyes and minds always intent it must be looked to that, if indeed they are situated 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 forth sufficient indications of reason, he may duly prepare the same in the manner of adults for receiving Baptism.

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

Resp. Everyone is bound, in performing his office, to guard against the danger of error so far as he can, and to apply to this all the diligence which the gravity of the matter demands. Moreover nothing is so consonant with ecclesiastical discipline and with the hierarchical order instituted by Christ in the Church as that inferiors be directed by superiors in undertaking sacred offices. Therefore where a case occurs in which a Priest assigned to missions hangs uncertain in mind whether, with the circumstances considered, it is lawful or not to minister Baptism, he is not to be considered as guarding sufficiently against the danger of error if, where it can conveniently be done, he neglects to approach his elders and spurns the assistance prepared for him in their judgment, counsel, and authority.

IV. Where Bishops, Vicars, or Prefects are not present, whether one who gives work to missions ought by his own counsel to bring himself to baptize the aforesaid insane persons, after a diligent examination has first been applied and the aid of the Holy Spirit has been implored?

Resp. Religious ministers are indeed bound in that case both to apply diligent examination and earnestly to implore divine aid. But let them remember that their zeal ought chiefly to turn on this: not that they fashion new rules for themselves, but that they not err in applying the rules of the Church. But what those rules are, as pertains to the proposed doubts, can be understood partly from what has already been said, and will become known partly from what must be said.

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

Resp. Nothing more apt can be adduced for closing off this doubt than that distinguished sentence of St. Thomas, 2.2, q. 10, art. 12: The custom of the Church has the greatest authority, which is always to be emulated in all things. By the authority of this custom especially the Holy Doctor was induced to deny that it is lawful to baptize the children of infidels when their parents are unwilling, as is had in Const. Postremo mense, n. 6; wherefore it is by no means marvelous that that doctrine of St. Thomas has both been commonly received by others, and has been strengthened and confirmed by the sentences and judgments of other ecclesiastical tribunals as well as also of the supreme Inquisition, as Benedict XIV testifies in the cited Constitution Postremo mense, n. 5, and Constitution Probe, n. 10. Moreover the authority of the same custom applies likewise to excluding that formula of condition which is proposed to be added in ministering Baptism. For almost three causes we find by the custom of the Church that a condition has prevailed in conferring Baptism: when there is prudent doubt concerning Baptism previously conferred, whether it 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 one word: from the custom of the Church a condition is then employed in Baptism when there is place for doubting whether something has been absent or is absent which is required for the validity of the Sacrament. But whenever it is established that no such thing is absent, it has never been heard that it is lawful for the minister, while he executes the rite of Baptism, to add conditions from his own judgment by which the making of the Sacrament is impeded. Therefore what St. 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 it will be necessary for sacred ministers altogether to abstain from usurping the proposed formula, and to follow that norm which was prescribed for the second doubt.

VI. Whether that is lawful for ministers of the missions which is said to have been proposed by Honoratus Tournely, who, after setting forth the opinion of certain Theologians judging that all infant children of infidels can be baptized when their parents are unaware, adds, as it is reported, that in that case he would have recourse to the Holy See or to nearer prelates for the sake of seeking an oracle; if this assistance were lacking, that he would implore the aid of the Holy Spirit, and would take the counsel of acting from his guidance, and finally that in such a matter each one should be left in his own opinion?

Resp. The opinions of Doctors are to be measured according to the decrees of the Church, not the decrees themselves bent according to the pleasure of those opining.

Therefore, whatever Tournely or other private persons have thought, here a stronger authority is present, placed in the constitutions of the Supreme Pontiffs and in the decrees of the sacred Congregations, which now altogether abrogate all faith in that opinion which seems in some manner to be stirred up by that question, which generally establishes that it is lawful to baptize infant children of infidels when their parents are unwilling or unaware. Indeed Benedict XIV, Const. Postremo mense, n. 7, proposes as fixed and ratified that it is unlawful that infants of the Hebrews be baptized when the judgment of the parents resists, unless however danger of death urges, as he afterwards explains. And lest anyone by calumny should wish that it is one thing to act when parents are unwilling, another when they are unaware, that empty and plainly fictitious distinction is exploded by Constitution Probe, n. 10, where he approves the doctrine of St. Thomas by which he teaches that infants of infidels can by no means be baptized without the consent of the parents. The Pontiff says that doctrine is both commonly received and confirmed by the judgments of ecclesiastical tribunals.

Moreover, for a plainer explanation of this doctrine, it will be worthwhile to append here especially three decrees of the S. Congregation, which indeed were indicated above, but which it was necessary to refer back to this place, so that the series of responses would correspond to the series of doubts. The first, in the year 1705, on 18 Feb., by which, as in Const. Postremo mense, n. 8, responding to the question of the Prelate of happy memory Charles Naigrot, "Whether infant children of infidels can be baptized when their parents are unwilling?" the following response was issued: "The Eminent Fathers, the vote of the Lord Consultors having been heard, said that it is not lawful, except in the article of death." The second, by which, to the request of the Bishop of Quebec concerning infants whom parents freely and spontaneously offer to Baptism, response was made on 4 May 1793: "It is not lawful, if they are children of infidels and to be left in their power, the danger of imminent death nevertheless set aside." To this is consonant another issued on 15 March 1770: "It is not lawful outside danger of death to confer Baptism on those offered by both infidel parents, as often as the same infants after receiving Baptism are to be left under the power and education of the same infidel parents." The third, on 28 January 1657, to the doubt concerning infant children of infidels, constituted in proximate danger of life, response was made: "Baptism can be conferred on infants constituted in the article of death morally certain, if however this is done without scandal." From these decrees those three general precepts are drawn out which had to be touched upon at the beginning, so that reason and way might be prepared for unraveling the doubts themselves, namely: 1. It is not lawful, except in the article or morally certain danger of imminent death, to baptize infant children of infidels when their parents are unwilling or unaware. 2. Nor is it lawful outside the same danger (since in the decrees article and danger are taken promiscuously) to baptize infants even freely offered by infidel parents, if after Baptism they are to be left in the power of their infidel parents. Nor, for breaking or evading the force of this prescription, ought the distinction which is customarily objected between material and formal perversion to have force. That great Pontiff Benedict did not ignore this distinction; nevertheless, it not having been attended to, he pronounces generally in Const. Postremo mense, n. 26, that grave danger of perversion in this matter is a thing of the greatest moment. And the same is established from the decrees brought forward, that it is altogether to be guarded against. 3. In the very article of death also, infant children of infidels are indeed to be baptized, yet in such a way that scandal is avoided, and consequently no greater hatred of infidels against the Christian religion and cruelty against Christians is stirred up. Therefore in every event let sacred ministers indeed implore divine aid, lest forgetfulness of those decrees ever seize them, or they think it lawful for themselves to prefer their private judgment to the same.

VII and VIII. Whether it is lawful to use that opinion explained above at least when, a plague raging, out of a hundred children, as for the most part happens, ninety perish; or when diseases of the people of the worst character consume by far the greatest part of children before they attain the use of reason?

Resp. The sentence of St. Thomas must be repeated here concerning the greatest part of authority which is inherent in the custom of the Church, which is always to be emulated in all things, and against which it is dangerous to introduce new things. In the first centuries of the Church, while Christians were living mixed with infidels, devastations and pestilences were not lacking; nor on that account was it ever placed in custom that the Most Holy Pastors of the Church should baptize the children of infidels with whom they were living, when the parents were unwilling or unaware. Even now in the kindly City Hebrews live among Christians and are permitted to live by their own customs; nor nevertheless have the Supreme Pontiffs ever conceded that, whether openly or secretly, infants, children of Hebrews, be baptized when their parents are unwilling or unaware, for the reason that when a popular plague rages many more of those infants die. From this it is easily understood that a twofold account of danger, as pertains to the present institution, must be distinguished, namely: that common and wandering danger which threatens even healthy men in those places which are afflicted by a popular disease; the other proper and certain danger in which are those whom the infection of the disease infects, or who in whatever way are brought into present danger of life. Moreover the constitutions of the Pontiffs and the decrees of the Congregations, while they forbid the children of infidels to be baptized when parents are unwilling except in danger of death, speak of this present danger, which determinately touches the man to be baptized, and which sometimes is expressed by the name of the article of death as by a synonymous word; but they do not speak of that common and wandering danger, into which neither the word nor the notion of the article of death in any way fits.

Next it must be observed that, although most infants are consumed by force of the disease, nevertheless some always survive, either those whom the disease spares, or those who overcome the disease. But if all infants are baptized indiscriminately, it is consequent that these remain under the care of infidels, to be imbued with their depraved superstitions. And this very thing is what both the constitutions of the Pontiffs and the decrees of the sacred Congregations forbid to be done.

Nevertheless in that devastation which deadly diseases sometimes bring, especially to barbarous regions, there will plainly be something in which religious men may spend laudable work, and bring back an immense fruit of their labors. They will profit much by baptizing those who, constituted morally certainly in the article of death according to the cited decrees, are always to be baptized cautiously and prudently. In this matter they must studiously provide that no one perish by their carelessness and negligence. Next, in those most calamitous times it will sometimes be able to happen that, the parents having died and the inhabitants having been scattered, very many children lie cast away and deserted, destitute of all human aid. In seeking out those miserable infants religious men assigned to missions will give a present and excellent signification of their charity, not that they cast them away again after baptizing them hastily, but that they gather them, and aid and care for them with paternal and pastoral help, so that, whether by their own work, so far as their faculties allow, or by the work of outsiders to whom they will be able duly to commend them, those children, separated from the company of infidels, may be instructed for the duties of Christian life, and at the same time for some honest kind of labor or craft.

IX. Whether with greater right infants, children of heretics or schismatics, who are accustomed to be baptized with their doubtful matter or form, can be baptized again under condition, while namely they are not yet suited to grasp the speculative errors of their parents?

Resp. An involved question and one to be unraveled individually through its parts. For it is asked: 1. concerning Baptism to be ministered to infant children of heretics or schismatics; 2. concerning the cause of repeating Baptism under condition; 3. concerning the use or faculty of reason in the child to be baptized.

As regards 1. It is indeed certain that in the possession of the Church there is a right of baptizing infant children of heretics or schismatics, and of preventing them from being imbued with the errors of their parents; nor can any doubt be raised concerning this right of the Church. Therefore the hinge of the difficulty turns on this: what is to be done when the Church cannot execute that right of hers, nor remove the danger which threatens those infants while they remain under the care and power of heretical or schismatical parents. Here not undeservedly sacred ministers will be able to use the opinion of outstanding Theologians, who judge: "The same thing seems to have to be said in that case concerning a heretic and concerning any other infidel, if the same moral danger exists." From this they conclude that, 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 his own time be instructed in the true faith. But if in no way he can have a moral hope of this kind, he ought certainly rather to abstain from Baptism, supposing that the little one is not in extreme necessity, in which anyone else can be baptized."

As regards 2. Wherever to the other wickednesses of heretics this also is added, that they apply doubtful matter or form to Baptism, this is indeed enough of a cause why Baptism ought to be repeated under condition. But in this matter not any rumors whatever are plainly to be trusted; but the rite by which the child was baptized is to be diligently and solicitously investigated so far as can be done, and then, if the validity of the prior Baptism remains doubtful, he must be baptized again under condition, if indeed a case occurs in which from the preceding doctrine Baptism is to be ministered.

As regards 3. Some ambiguity lies hidden in that final clause, while the children of heretics or schismatics are not yet suited to grasp the speculative errors of their parents. Here a more advanced age is rather obscurely signified, in which an adolescent, although he has already attained the use of reason, has not yet progressed so far that he can discern the subtle errors of the parents. Concerning such a child or adolescent the question seems to be asked whether a Catholic minister can lawfully baptize him, either absolutely or under condition, with no word having been had concerning those speculative errors, under this pretext, that he is not yet able sufficiently to grasp them. In one 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 before he is warned concerning the errors of that Sect with which he has already been imbued, and is led 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 the preparation for Baptism to be ministered to adults, and are everywhere explained by Catholic Doctors. An adult to be baptized asks faith from the Church; therefore he must be taught the principal heads of the Christian faith, and must profess that faith which the Holy Catholic Roman Church holds and professes, and promise due obedience to that Church and to its Supreme Head, the Roman Pontiff. Therefore although the child concerning whom the question is asked is not yet able to inspect and penetrate the speculative errors of his parents by his own, as it were, understanding, nevertheless it is not lawful for him 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 devote work to missions ought to judge this office given to themselves: that they lead to the sheepfold of Christ the sheep who have perished. But who would judge those to pertain to the sheepfold of Christ who adhere to Sects which pursue the sheepfold of Christ and bear a hostile mind like wolves against the Church? The Church is enlarged by the aggregation of those who acknowledge, hear, and honor her as Mother and Mistress; nor does she acknowledge as her own those who impiously refuse to acknowledge and venerate the power given to her by Christ according to the faith and prescription of the Church herself.

X. Whether those assigned to missions are bound under grave obligation to apply work and zeal, that they may become suitable and equal to executing the offices concerning which thus far it has been said, lest they allow so many souls to perish, which are damned by their carelessness and impatience of labor.

Resp. There is no place for ambiguity here. It is certain among all that each one is bound to put whatever moral diligence he can into this, that he may be rendered apt and suitable for undertaking his own offices. This obligation is the graver, the more grave in moment the offices themselves are which each one performs. From this it is clear with how grave a fault that minister would bind himself by whose carelessness and negligence, may God avert it, it happened that even the least of the little ones perished, for whom Christ poured out his Blood. Wherefore sacred ministers ought especially to confer their zeal on this: that they procure those helps of doctrine which are necessary for themselves to perform their offices duly. They will have to seek these from approved authors, and especially from those who have treated of matters pertaining to missions, whom, as being sufficiently 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, approved by inviolable authority, which Christ willed to be for his faithful, as of every saving truth, so of every truly pious thing, the most certain guide and mistress." Hyacinthus Gerdil, Bishop of Dibona, Instr. S. C. de P. F. 17 Apr. 1777.

"The S. C. skillfully observed that the doubt concerning the administration of Baptism to little ones recently born from heretical progenitors rests on a false principle, namely, that it is not lawful to baptize them at home only outside danger of death, but that it is indeed lawful in church, if they are brought to it for the reception of Baptism. But since from this false persuasion there threatens a danger of gravely sinning, not only against Ecclesiastical law but also against Divine law, by which the subject to whom it is not lawful to administer Baptism is prescribed; therefore it ordered the present Instruction to be drawn up, to be transmitted to the aforesaid Reverend Father Lord Vicar Apostolic, insofar as, with the same communicated to the Missionaries living there, each one may learn the true cause on account of which it has several times been defined by the Apostolic See that it is not lawful to administer the sacrament of Baptism to children born of heretical parents outside danger of death, and in the future they may beware of soliciting heretical parents to bring their children to the church to be initiated by Baptism.

The Church indeed forbids, in the single Clementine, On Baptism, that, except in the article of necessity, on account of which access to the church cannot be had without danger because of this, infants be baptized at home, unless they are children of great Princes; but by this law, by which the place for administering Baptism is indicated, nothing is established concerning children born of heretical parents, whom it is established from another source cannot be baptized by Catholics either at home or in church, if they are well; namely, since by 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 every true justice in us either begins, or once begun is increased, or once lost is repaired, it is not lawful to give those things to dogs, that is, to the profane, who, as soon as through age they will be able, are going to despise them and corrupt them by their own fault. But no one does not see that children begotten from heretical parents, who are to be permitted to the care and education of their progenitors, as soon as they arrive at the age of discretion, in which they can be masters of their own acts, will be imbued with paternal errors, and are going to sacrilegiously abjure the Catholic faith which through sponsors in Baptism they ought to profess, to the greater condemnation of themselves and the graver contempt of the Catholic Church in which they have been regenerated. For this reason, therefore, it is not lawful to baptize them in infantile age outside danger of death, and Catholic Ministers sin against the office of a faithful dispenser who admit the same to receiving Baptism.

Therefore let Missionaries in no way be moved to procure Baptism for the aforesaid children, although it is going to be that they will perpetually lack this Sacrament, because of the error of parents by which they think it not at all necessary for obtaining eternal salvation. Indeed Baptism cannot profit those who, after receiving the use of reason, are soon going to be apostates from the Catholic faith, nor does the holiness of the Sacrament suffer that it be conferred on the same with manifest danger of profanation. But when danger of death is pressing, or the aforesaid little ones have been infected by any defect of health by which they are prudently believed to be about to die before they attain the years of discretion, not only is it lawful, but Missionaries ought solicitously to take care that they be regenerated in due time by the sacrament of Baptism, not only in church but even at home, if the parents with hardened will are unwilling that they be brought to the church; for then the proximate danger of perversion ceases, and by necessary remedy provision is made for the eternal salvation of the infant, without fault, indeed even with merit of the Minister. Nevertheless, whenever it happens that Baptism is administered in the houses of Heretics to their infants in danger as above, let them omit the solemnities which do not pertain to the substance of the Sacrament; for it has been provided by ecclesiastical rule that they not be used in the presence of Heretics, in their houses." Instr. S. O. 27 Jan. 1767.

Whether children can be baptized who are to be left in the power of infidel parents, but there underlies a founded hope that they can be instructed in the Catholic Religion? Resp. "It is to be committed to the prudent judgment and conscience of the Missionaries (the Apostolic Prefect having been heard, if it can be done), who in the circumstances set forth can baptize children offered by non-baptized parents, provided that in individual cases no grave danger of perversion is foreseen to be present, and provided that it is not established that the parents offer the children to be baptized because of superstition." S. O. 1867.

"It is lawful for a parish priest to baptize a child, with one of the parents who is Catholic consenting, even if he certainly knows that the other will afterwards take care that the infant is baptized by a heretical minister; but the Catholic spouse is bound to warn the heretical spouse that the child has already been legitimately baptized." S. C. de P. F. 29 Nov. 1672.

"1. Whether a girl of ten years living in a monastery can safely be admitted to the profession of the Catholic faith, when her father, a heretic, is unwilling? 2. Whether girls living in a monastery can safely be admitted to the profession of the Catholic faith, whose heretical parents are consenting, indeed promise that they are going to give the same in marriage to Catholic men, although as regards themselves they declare that they are heretics and wish to remain such? 3. Whether girls can safely be admitted to the profession of the Catholic faith as in the preceding, although the parents themselves are not Catholic but indifferent, that is, unbelieving? ..... 5. Whether girls at present well disposed are to be admitted without delay to the profession of the Catholic faith and reception of the Sacraments; or whether their admission will have to be deferred until marriage with a Catholic man, because of fear of perversion? 6. If it is to be deferred, whether they are to be admitted in a monastery, that they may be taught the Catholic faith, or must it be awaited until the time of marriage with a Catholic man? Resp. To the 1st. Let the Vicar Apostolic first take care with all his strength to obtain the consent of the girl's father: if consent is not obtained, let him seriously weigh the inconveniences which are foreseen to proceed from the admission of such a girl into the Church, both as regards proximate danger of perversion of the same girl, and as regards grave damage to the Catholic school and mission; and insofar as no inconveniences or negligible ones are foreseen, let him admit the same without delay; but insofar as grave inconveniences are foreseen to be going to occur, let him defer the admission of the same to the formal and public profession of the Catholic faith, unless danger of death is imminent; and meanwhile let him take care to exhort her to persevere in the good resolution, and to pray God that he deign to remove all obstacles; and at the same time let him take care that she continue to remain in the monastery; and in this way let her complete and perfect her Catholic education. To the 2nd and 3rd. Affirmatively; let them take care that the parents stand by their promises. To the 5th and 6th. Provision has been made through the responses to the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd; and if further difficulties arise, let the Reverend Father Lord Vicar Apostolic have recourse in individual cases." S. I. C. 21 July 1880. Cf. Zitelli, Appar. Iur. Eccles., Rome, 1886, p. 502.

"... Now indeed, that the testimony of one suffices for proving Baptism is an old axiom of Jurists, as is seen in the Gloss, chapter Nuper, at the word Nisi iuratus, On witnesses and attestations: Sometimes nevertheless one person is well believed, when there is no prejudice to anyone; for example, whether someone has been baptized, or whether a church was consecrated, and where someone wishes to prove through his Confessor that he has done penance. And in can. Placuit, at the word Testentur, On consecration, dist. 4: Therefore one is believed by the testimony of one person in Baptism and in the Consecration of a church. This nevertheless must be understood, provided that faith can prudently be applied to the witness, whether male or female, or likewise if the one who testifies is the one who baptized; for this person, asserting that he himself ministered Baptism to a little Hebrew infant, would by his own testimony confirm not merely a thing done by himself, but also one most worthy of penalty. Into the Hospital of the Holy Spirit, a refuge for those cast away, infants are not rarely brought bearing before themselves a paper suspended from the neck, on which it is read written that Baptism has already been conferred on the same. When we were still discharging the office of Undersecretary of the S. Congregation of the Council, the Parish Priest of the Holy Spirit asked what he ought to do in cases of this kind. The proposed question was in the Congregation on 18 December 1723, as Thesaurus declares, Resol., tom. 2, p. 412; but on 15 January 1724 it was thus rescripted: if the one who had written the little paper were not unknown, and faith could safely be furnished to him, then the infant is to be held as baptized, and not even to be initiated by Baptism under condition, as is openly clear in tom. 3 of the aforesaid Thesaurus, p. 2." Benedict XIV, Const. Postremo mense, 28 Feb. 1747.

"If the testimony (concerning Baptism conferred) is from an uncertain man, in a matter so grave one cannot defer to unknown testimony: wherefore then the infant is to be rebaptized under condition, even if he bears a note concerning Baptism received suspended from his neck, as is used for exposed infants in certain places." S. C. C. 5 Jan. 1724.

"... Generally and without selection, even with the addition or condition, anyone whatever is not to be rebaptized.... They are permitted to administer Baptism conditionally only to those concerning whom, after diligent inquiry has been premised, there remains a grave and reasonable doubt of law or fact whether they have at another time duly received the Sacrament. In this matter it will profit them to have before their eyes the things handed down by Benedict XIV in his Institutions 84 in the diocesan Synod, especially book VII, chapter VI. But although it appears perhaps hardly ever that one should abstain from a diligent previous inquiry of this kind without danger of injury to the Sacrament; nevertheless, all things maturely weighed and balanced which are noted in the above-mentioned letter by the worker Boyer and confirmed by the testimony of Your Amplitude, concerning certain places of that Vicariate, with attention to the quality of the Catechists and faithful, so that the inquiry or examination for discerning or arguing the valid or invalid conferral of Baptism either cannot be instituted at all, or would certainly be done uselessly and without any illustration of the doubt, the same S. C., in these circumstances and according to the things set forth, and while the circumstances continue without other things, so that the salvation of souls may be placed in safety, declared that Baptism can be administered with the condition added." Instr. S. C. de P. Fide, 8 Sept. 1869.

"Whether Baptism should be conferred under condition on heretics who are converted to the Catholic faith, from whatever place they may come and to whatever sect they may pertain. Resp. Negatively; but in the conversion of heretics, from whatever place or from whatever sect they may have come, inquiry must be made concerning the validity of Baptism received in heresy. Therefore, after examination has been instituted in individual cases, if it has been discovered either that no Baptism was conferred, or that it was conferred nullly, they will have to be baptized absolutely; but if, according to the reason of times or places, after investigation has been performed, nothing is detected either for validity or for invalidity, or a probable doubt concerning the validity of baptism still remains, then they are to be baptized under condition secretly; finally, if it has been established that it was valid, they will only have to be received to abjuration and profession of faith." S. I. C. 21 Feb. 1883; 20 Nov. 1878; S. C. de P. F. 23 June 1830. "Therefore a threefold method of proceeding is distinguished in reconciling heretics: 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 under condition, one must proceed in this order: a) Abjuration or profession of faith, b) conditional Baptism, c) sacramental Confession with conditional absolution. 3. Finally, when Baptism has been judged valid, only abjuration or profession of faith is received, which absolution from censures follows." Instr. S. C. I. 20 July 1859.

"As regards abjuration, one must stand by the rule of Albitius, namely that if the matter concerns adolescents who have attained the 14th year, only the profession of the Catholic faith is to be required from them before they are admitted to the sacraments; but if the matter concerns those who have exceeded the 14th year of age, formal abjuration of the sect to which they pertained is to be required." Instr. S. I. C. 20 Nov. 1878.

"In judging whether Baptism is to be repeated under conditional form, neither too much difficulty nor too much facility is to be used." Instr. S. C. de P. F. 23 June 1830. Cf. Collectan. Const. etc. for the use of the Paris Workers, 1880, n. 249.

"Generally speaking, those are to be held as Christians concerning whom it is doubted whether they have been validly baptized. Baptism is to be judged valid in order to the validity of Marriage." S. O. 9 Sept. 1868. Cf. On Matrimony, N. 831.

Cf. On the Theological Virtues, N. 192; On the Sacraments in General, N. 218.

"Doubts were subjected to the examination of the Supreme S. C., transmitted in the preceding year by Your Amplitude to the Most Eminent Prefect of the S. C. de Propaganda Fide, relating to the administration of the Sacrament of Baptism, the first of which asked whether in a case of necessity, namely when extraneous sponsors are altogether lacking, it is lawful for parents materially to hold their own offspring in solemn Baptism; or rather, in that case, private Baptism is to be substituted for solemn.

Moreover the reason of the question demands that the distinction of solemn from private Baptism be noted beforehand; for from this it can easily be inferred whether the defect of sponsor alone demands that private be substituted for solemn. Therefore private Baptism, as you know well, is said to be that in which no ceremony prescribed by the Ritual is employed other than the washing of the one to be baptized, with the words of the form having been pronounced, namely those things which by divine law are necessary for baptism. But it is considered solemn when those rites and ceremonies are employed which the Roman Ritual records to have been received and approved by apostolic and most ancient tradition, and to pertain to its solemnity. Now indeed, relating to the use of the rites themselves, the Ritual itself warns that it is not lawful to omit them except for a cause of necessity, which indeed the same Supreme S. C. confirmed by its oracle. For when it had been asked in the year 1663: Whether in places where there is no parochial church nor baptismal font, Baptism can be conferred with all the solemnities and ceremonies customary in the Church; by decree of Wednesday, 28 February of the aforesaid year, it was prescribed: that they can, indeed are bound to use those ceremonies which they can use. Wherefore it is immediately clear that private Baptism is not to be substituted for solemn on the ground that some ceremony cannot be done; for, with this omitted, the others are to be fulfilled. These things having been posited, although it can hardly be conceived how, in deserted places in which no one else occurs besides the parents of those to be baptized, ceremonies can be employed in Baptism; nevertheless, granted that some of them can be observed, the defect of sponsor will not bring it about that the other rites ought or can be omitted, and thus that Baptism become private; but Missionaries are bound to use those which they can. Indeed the Sacred Order judges that in this case the presence of an extraneous sponsor can in some manner be supplied through the parents of those to be baptized. Since nothing prevents them from taking the place of sponsors, by materially holding their infants and by answering for them to the one baptizing, yet without the prerogative of true and properly taken sponsorship, namely without the necessity of undertaking the burdens which a duty of this kind brings with itself, of contracting the impediment of spiritual kinship prohibiting the use of marriage. Thus it will happen that in the solemnity of Baptism all the rites are preserved in some way, and the formal presence of sponsors is supplied by the material presence of the parents. For the rest, through this you will understand that no one is by any means exempted from the burden of taking care, so far as possible, that in solemn Baptism at least one sponsor properly so called be employed. For the presence of sponsors in Baptism, from most ancient tradition, has always been held as a principal ceremony in the Church of Christ, so that the signification of spiritual generation might be preserved through sponsors, and the religious education of the child might be placed in safety by their promise.

Your Amplitude asked in addition whether in some cases parents can lawfully designate as sponsor some absent person, although his assent is had after Baptism has been conferred. Certainly it is undoubted that the duty of sponsor can be undertaken through an interposed person, or through a procurator; nevertheless in this case the laws require that the absent person accept the duty of sponsor at a suitable time, and issue a mandate in favor of him who ought to represent him in such a ceremony. The reason is that a sponsor ought to have a formal will of accepting and exercising according to his strength the burdens inherent in sponsorship. Wherefore you will understand well that sponsors cannot be designated by the reason proposed by you.

Finally the Sacred Order is together with you in disapproving the carelessness of parents who commit the duty of sponsor not to selected suitable persons but to anyone whatever who happens to meet them when Baptism must be conferred, although they have for certain that he is not going to see his spiritual child any more. Wherefore it commends to you especially that also in this matter the prescription of the Roman Ritual be faithfully observed, which will be obtained if parents, having been warned of the gravity of the office, are induced to choose suitable sponsors when they conveniently can.

These things, which from the mind and mandate of the S. Congregation I had to signify to you, you will also communicate to the Missionaries subject to you, so that, as the matter requires, they may conform themselves to the same." Instr. S. C. de P. F. 15 Sept. 1869.

Concerning Baptism to be conferred in private houses, in Resp. S. R. C. 27 Apr. 1877 it is said: "Your Highness ought to take care, yet prudently and cautiously, to remove the abuses which have crept into this matter, and should bring it about that infants are brought to be baptized according to the prescription of the Church and common practice."

"1. Whether, in these places where there is no church or common oratory, it is lawful for a Priest solemnly, that is, with all the ceremonies and prayers prescribed in the Roman Ritual employed, to baptize the children of Christians in their private houses? 2. Whether it is lawful to baptize solemnly in private houses where indeed there is a church, but so distant that parents are unwilling to have their infants brought to it, lest something evil happen to them from the inclemency of the air, which the Annamites fear beyond measure? Resp. To the 1st. Not only is it lawful, but it is required. To the 2nd. Lest in this matter there be departure from the most holy institutes of the Church, the Missionary ought to employ every care that parents withdraw from this irrational contradiction of theirs; but if by his persuasions and warnings he accomplishes nothing, then he will be able to persuade himself that the matter has been brought to a case of necessity; for it will be impossible to baptize these infants when the parents, in whose power they are, resist; therefore it will be lawful to confer Baptism on those infants outside the church, and in private houses, or where it will have been permitted by the parents, with the sacred rites and ceremonies omitted, with the intention nevertheless of supplying them in church as soon as this will have been permitted to be done. But if it is foreseen that the parents of the infants will not permit, even in the course of time, their infants to be brought to the church for the ceremonies to be supplied, then it will be more satisfactory that the rites and ceremonies prescribed by the Roman Ritual be employed in those private houses themselves in the act of conferring Baptism; for it will be better that the laudable custom, which concerns only the greater decency and reverence toward this Sacrament, of celebrating Baptism in church be omitted, than that the baptized little ones be deprived of the not small spiritual goods which are derived into them from the sacred ceremonies instituted by the Church, when these have been employed over them." S. C. de P. F. 21 Jan. 1789.

"In places of Missions, where Catholics not rarely dwell far from churches or public oratories, for example, ten or twenty geographic miles distant from them, and the transportation of infants at a tender age through so great a distance of places is subject to great dangers and inconveniences, whether there it is lawful, when the Missionary has been called, to baptize these infants solemnly in private houses, or outside danger of death to minister Baptism without ceremonies? Resp. Affirmatively, or that Baptism in the case can be ministered in private houses, with the customary rite of the Church preserved." S. R. C. 4 Feb. 1871.

"Must Baptism be ministered with the Sacramentals when convenience is present, or can they be omitted in order to avoid the horror of the Japanese at the anointing, insufflation, and use of saliva? Resp. That such salutary rites of the Church are altogether to be observed, and that the delicate persons who are horrified are to be judged unworthy who should be admitted within the Church. But Priests who, so that they may reject them, rely on these reasons, ought to observe that by these same reasons heretics defend their own errors against the Catholic Church." S. C. de P. F. 7 Sept. 1626.

"Whether in China Evangelical ministers, at least for now, in the sacrament of Baptism can abstain from placing on women the Holy Oil of Catechumens, spittle in the ears, and salt in the mouth? And the reason for doubting is that the Chinese are led by great zeal toward wives, daughters, and other women, and will take scandal from actions of this kind. Resp. That Sacramentals in the Baptism of women are to be employed, nor is the motive expressed in the doubt sufficient that Missionaries, insofar as it is in them, abstain from these things. Therefore care is to be taken that such salutary rites and ceremonies be introduced and observed, and that Missionaries administer them with such circumspection, and instruct men with such documents, that they be freed from every suspicion concerning propriety." S. C. de P. F. 12 Sept. 1645, Missionaries Dominicans in China.

"Whether all the Sacramentals in the Baptism of adult women are to be employed? The reason for doubting is the incredible modesty of women among the Chinese, their zeal, and their laudable flight from every association with men, not only from meeting but also from sight: in this matter, unless great caution is employed by Missionaries, immense scandal is given to the Chinese, and the whole Christianity could be exposed to most evident danger. Resp. From grave proportionate necessity, certain Sacramentals in the Baptism of women can be omitted." S. C. S. O. 23 March 1656, Missionaries S. I. in China.

"Whether the precept and mandate remain and continue in their own force..... concerning the observance of the responses and resolutions made on 12 Sept. 1645 in S. C. de P. F. Resp. That the decree of the S. C. de P. F. given under the day 12 Sept. 1645, according to the things then set forth in the doubts, is in its own force, and was not circumscribed through the Decree of the S. C. S. O. given under the day 23 March 1656, but must altogether be observed according to the questions, circumstances, and all things expressed in the said doubts, as it lies, in the same way that the Decree of the S. C. S. O. given as above on 23 March 1656 declared that it must be observed according to the questions, circumstances, and all things expressed in them." S. C. S. O. 13 Nov. 1669, Missionaries Dominicans in China.

"1. Whether, on account of one singular case, it is lawful absolutely and universally to abstain from administering to adult women the Oil of Catechumens? For it seems to be repugnant to the Decree of the Sacred Congregation. 2. The Missionaries judge and unanimously think that, to avoid the calumnies of the Heathen, it is very expedient that the Sacramentals of Baptism be conferred on adult women not with the finger, but with a little brush. Nevertheless the good pleasure of Our Most Holy Lord is desired. Resp. The Qualifiers of the Holy Office: To the 1st, it is not lawful to abstain. To the 2nd, it was answered at another time that the common use of the Church is to be observed." 1674, Father Navarette.

We strictly prohibit that, in baptizing both children and adults of whatever sex and condition, Sacramentals be omitted; but let all be employed openly, and especially saliva, salt, and insufflation, which the Catholic Church has received from apostolic tradition and, because of the hidden mysteries in these sacred ceremonies of the Divine goodness toward us, has guarded holily and inviolably; the Decree of the Holy Universal Roman Inquisition of the year 1656, made for China on account of diverse reasons and circumstances, by no means standing in the way. Benedict XIV, Const. Omnium sollicitudinum, 12 Sept. 1744.

"Let them see, however, lest perhaps those causes of fearing be empty or light which are brought forward here and there for omitting in the administration of Baptism the ceremonies prescribed by the Roman Ritual; and, when it happens that these ceremonies are passed over for true and grave causes, they will take care that they be supplied at the first opportunity. For rites of such great weight and such antiquity, and especially necessary for conciliating reverence toward the Sacrament, are not neglected without grave sin." Benedict XIV, Const. Inter omnigenas, 2 Feb. 1744.

"Whether outside the case of urgent necessity, or outside imminent danger, a Priest can lawfully simply wash infants or adults, all the ceremonies of Baptism having been omitted? Resp. That he cannot. Nevertheless, not only imminent danger of death can be a legitimate cause of omitting the solemnities of Baptism, but also any reasonable and grave cause which impedes the administration of the same solemnities, as, for example, if time is altogether lacking, if danger from Pagans is pressing, if the Priest does not have and cannot conveniently have the oil of Catechumens, holy Chrism, blessed salt, and other things necessary for performing the same solemnities. But in these cases the Missionary must be warned that if he cannot employ all, but only some, ceremonies of Baptism, he should employ those, and then, when time and opportune occasion have been present, he is bound to supply the same ceremonies, either all or those which he omitted, in a church or oratory." S. C. de P. F. 21 Jan. 1789.

"That the Parish Priest conducted himself badly, by baptizing with violet stole, and anointing a child in danger outside the church with the oil even of Catechumens. For in the case of necessity, according to the prescription of the Ritual, all things are to be omitted which precede Baptism and which are afterwards to be supplied in the Church, to which the child is to be presented when he recovers." S. R. C. 23 Sept. 1820. Cf. Gardell. n. 4572.

"1. In Baptism to be conferred at home because of imminent danger of death, the ceremonies which precede Baptism having been omitted according to the rubric of the Roman Ritual, those which follow Baptism can be employed." 2. In the case of sickness and impossibility of employing all ceremonies, that he can and is bound to use those ceremonies which they can use." S. O. 10 Apr. 1861.

If the one bringing the child to be baptized is utterly unwilling that he be baptized unless the name of some impious person is imposed, it is not on that account lawful to defer baptism, but the child is to be baptized, with the name of some Saint added in a low voice. C. S. O. June 1883.

"1. What ceremonies and prayers must be observed, which are to be supplied for an adult Catholic, validly baptized after birth, but with the ceremonies omitted which, according to the Ritual, ought to precede or follow Baptism; whether those which are assigned in the Ritual for the Baptism of adults, or for the Baptism of infants? 2. Which of these ceremonies must be observed when an adult, converted from heresy to the Catholic faith, is to be baptized under condition because of a founded doubt concerning the validity of Baptism conferred by a heretical Minister? Resp. To the 1st. Let the ceremonies and prayers be observed which are assigned in the Ritual for the Baptism of infants. To the 2nd. Insofar as the ceremonies are to be supplied and are believed to be supplied, as in the doubt, those are to be supplied which are prescribed for the Baptism of adults." S. R. C. 27 Aug. 1836. Cf. Gardell. n. 4780.

"Whether it is lawful to baptize under condition publicly and with their ceremonies little ones lacking reason, who, doubtfully and without ceremonies already baptized in Protestantism, ought to be baptized under condition? Resp. That Baptism under condition is to be administered secretly to the little ones of whom in the case, and with the ceremonies prescribed in the Roman Ritual." S. C. S. O. 2 Apr. 1879.

"Where a baptismal font is not permitted, let water of Baptism duly blessed be preserved in some more decent and removable vessel." S. C. de P. F. 23 Feb. 1660.

"The Bishop of Saint-Hippolyte explained to the S. R. C. that in some Parochial churches of his Diocese, of which the population is not numerous, a custom had prevailed already for a long time that the Baptismal water be blessed only on Holy Saturday of Easter, and be reserved for the whole year; but that the Blessing of Baptismal water on the Vigil of Pentecost be omitted. At the admonition made by the Dean, these Parish Priests not only invoked a most ancient custom, but also appealed to the Rubric of the Roman Ritual, which has: But the water of solemn Baptism should be blessed in that year on Holy Saturday of Easter or on Saturday of Pentecost; whence they inferred that it suffices that, either on the Saturday of Great Week or on the Vigil of Pentecost, the Blessing of Baptismal water be done, and that it is not necessary for the same to be done, by mandate of the Rubric, on each Saturday. Wherefore the above-mentioned Orator most humbly asked from the same S. Congregation: Whether this custom can be tolerated, of blessing Baptismal water in these Parishes only once per year, namely on Holy Saturday of Easter? Resp. According to decrees at other times, and especially in one of Lucca, 12 Apr. 1755, and in one of Orvieto, 7 Dec. 1844, it judged that it should be rescripted: that Baptismal water in Parishes is to be blessed on the Saturdays of Easter and Pentecost, notwithstanding any contrary custom, which must altogether be eliminated." S. R. C. 13 Apr. 1874.

"Missionaries are altogether 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 preserved for this purpose in the Baptismal font. But where it is of grave inconvenience or danger to preserve water blessed by the prescribed rite, in that case it will be lawful for Missionaries, or for any other who according to the opportunity of times will be apt for conferring this Sacrament, to use common water, especially if it has been blessed, in place of the water of the Baptismal Font, which can be had only with grave inconvenience or danger." S. C. de P. F. 10 Feb. 1806.

S. C. de P. F., on 30 Apr. 1808, responded: "That Baptism in the Latin Church is to be administered in the Latin idiom according to the Roman Ritual; for the rest, nothing stands in the way that all those things which pertain to the Sacrament of Baptism itself be explained in the vernacular tongue." S. C. R. 12 Sept. 1857 decided that in the conferral of baptism the interrogations can neither be made in the vernacular nor repeated in the vernacular after they have been made in Latin. S. C. S. O. June 1879 rescripted to the Vicar Apostolic of Western Cochinchina that "the practice can be preserved" of making the interrogations first in Latin and immediately translating them into the vernacular tongue, so that the neophytes would understand them, and the sponsors and godmothers would answer them in the same tongue. Likewise the Our Father and the Creed were recited in Latin by the Priest ministering Baptism, while they were recited by the neophytes or sponsors or godmothers in the vernacular tongue. For there was the greatest difficulty of teaching neophytes or faithful who could be sponsors or godmothers the Latin responses, because of the greatest discrepancy of the Latin language and the languages of the Far East. The same S. C. of the Universal Inquisition, 23 Aug. 1880, to the question, "Whether it is lawful in the conferral of Baptism to make the interrogations in the common tongue, or at least to turn the said interrogations first made in Latin afterward into the common tongue, so that they may be understood by the adult to be Baptized, or by the sponsors and godmothers if the matter concerns the baptism of infants?" responded: As regards the first part, not expedient; as regards the second, affirmatively.

"... Rather, that is abhorrent to reason, and removed from all piety, for the sake of preserving a certain empty integrity and shame for a deceased mother, to assign a living child to eternal death. Certainly it is not modesty, not virtue, from which so great an evil flows. But this extraction of the fetus from the womb of the pregnant and deceased mother, although, as we say, it is to be made known and persuaded, His Holiness nevertheless expressly warns and prohibits that Missionaries insert themselves in particular cases in demanding the section, much less in performing it. Therefore it will have been enough for Missionaries to have given knowledge of it, and to have taken care that lay men who attend to surgical things learn the manner of performing it, and then, when the case has occurred, to have left the practice of the same to their burden and office." S. C. S. O. 15 Feb. 1760.