IV. On the Subject of Baptism

Who is the subject of baptism, and what are its necessary dispositions? - Resp. The subject of baptism is every and only man as wayfarer, not yet baptized. - As regards dispositions, in infants Christ and the Church supply their will. But in adults, for validly receiving baptism there is required at least a habitual explicit or at least implicit intention. In the same adults, for licitly receiving baptism there is required faith and penance. - L. 139; La Croix l. 6, p. 1, n. 60; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 79, a. 3 ad 2; 4 Dist. 6, q. 1, a. 3 ad 5; E. M.

You will resolve: Infants are validly baptized, likewise the perpetually insane, who have never used reason and therefore are judged to be of the same condition as infants. But if they have at some time used reason, more probably baptism is not valid unless before insanity they asked for it. In practice, however, these would be baptized conditionally, both because it is not plainly clear that they did not ask for baptism, and also because according to many it suffices if someone had the will of receiving all things necessary for salvation. Cf. 383. - If it is doubtful whether an infant lives, he is to be baptized conditionally.

Hence theologians rightly judge generally that all aborted fetuses are always to be baptized conditionally, if they are alive, provided putrefaction certainly does not appear. - Here it is fitting to add that very many are the cases of infants who are born in a state of apparent death, and that it has happened several times that these infants, even several hours after birth, have been recalled to life. Wherefore these too should be baptized, although no trace of life appears in them, provided again that putrefaction certainly does not appear. - When it is doubted whether a monster is a man, it is to be baptized absolutely if the head is human, although the members are bestial; but conditionally if the head is bestial and the members human. - But if it has doubled members of a man, and it is doubted whether it is one man or two, a double baptism is to be conferred, one absolutely, the other conditionally, in that part in which the members appear more imperfect. Hence, if there are two heads and two breasts, each one is to be baptized separately; if there is one head and two breasts, or two heads and one breast, baptism is to be conferred absolutely on one head and then baptism is to be conferred conditionally either on the other breast or on the other head.

And if there are two breasts, and it does not appear which one pertains to the head, after baptism upon the head, each breast is to be baptized conditionally. - A mole or fleshy mass which comes forth from natural abortion or from surgical extraction, without any disposition of organs or sign of motion and life, is not to be baptized. - Roman Ritual; L. 125; Capellmann, Medicina Pastoralis, Aachen, Latin ed. 4, p. 114 ff.

Is it licit to baptize an unwilling adult? Must an adult receive baptism at once after he has known its obligation? What about adults among unbelievers concerning whose will there is no certainty? - Resp. To the first: In the negative, and this is grave. C. Sicut 9, de Iud. et Sarrac. - To the second: "Someone is not bound to receive baptism immediately after he has the purpose of baptism, so that he would sin mortally unless he is baptized immediately, nor is there any determined time beyond which, if he defers baptism, he incurs mortal sin." St. Thomas Suppl. q. 6, a. 5. Yet since anyone is bound to enter the Church which he has known as soon as he conveniently can, and baptism is the gate of the Church, there follows from that former obligation the obligation of receiving baptism as soon as he conveniently can, although the time of delay to grave sin cannot be determined.

To the third: It is not licit to confer baptism on unbelievers even conditionally, if no positive sign is had of their will to receive baptism, although they are dying. But they will be able to be baptized conditionally if, all the circumstances of things having been examined, it is prudently judged that they wish baptism, or have desired it, or have renounced idolatry. Collection of S. C. de P. F. n. 582, 585, etc.

Are infants to be baptized at once? - "It must be noted that they sin gravely who defer baptizing an infant for much time. This is common among all... and in the Ritual it is said: Let the pastor exhort that a sacrament so greatly necessary not be too much deferred for children, with danger to salvation... More commonly and more probably the delay is not grave unless 10 or 11 days are exceeded." L. 118. The Salmanticenses judge that it is not mortal to defer for 15 or even 20 days, even without an urgent cause.

Indeed others with Suarez say that it is not a grave delay if it does not reach a month, although there is no cause; but when a cause stands, if it is not extended to two months. The reason indeed for not notably deferring baptism is "the danger of death, which must always be feared in children." St. Thomas 3 p., q. 68, a. 3 ad 1. - Trent sess. 5, Decree on Original Sin; sess. 7, c. 12; Roman Ritual tit. 2, cap. 1, n. 27; cap. 3, n. 4-6; Roman Catechism 34; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 88, a. 3, 9; E. M.

Are children rightly baptized against the will of their parents? - It is certain 1. that such baptism is valid; 2. that this baptism is also licit if it concerns the children of Catholics, since they are subject to the laws of the Church. D. Gousset does not easily concede this if impious parents have altogether refused. Yet Gousset himself observes that the contrary is common. For this can be done cautiously without any danger; and since the child still lives among Catholics, perversion is not so greatly to be feared. But it is not expedient to resolve this question practically without the counsel of the bishop.

If it concerns the children of unbelievers, Scotus affirms that they are licitly baptized against the will of the parents; but the more common opinion, and the one to be held in practice, which the Thomists defend, teaches that, generally speaking, the children of unbelievers are baptized illicitly if their parents are or are judged likely to be opposed, although otherwise they are civilly subject to Christian Princes. For those baptized are either taken away from their parents, and injury is done to them; for it is of natural law that the child, before he has the use of reason, is under the care of the father; or they are left with those same parents, and injury is done to the sacrament, since it is exposed to irreverence. Whence it is also not licit to baptize them, although they are spontaneously offered by each parent, whenever those same infants must be left under the power and education of those same unbelieving parents. This is confirmed from the practice of the Church and from Benedict XIV both in Instr. Postremo mense, Feb. 28, 1747, and in Epist. Probe te. Indeed, as regards the children of Hebrews, there is the Constitution of Julius III, who imposed upon delinquents suspension and a penalty of one thousand ducats.

Generally speaking. For they will also be licitly baptized: 1. If the parents are our slaves; for then they are rather of our law than of theirs. 2. If either parent asks, because his or her just will is to be preferred to the unjust will of the other in favor of faith and of the offspring; or if, the father being dead, the paternal grandfather consents, even with the mother resisting, since paternal power is with him, or at least the paternal grandmother, although wholly lacking paternal power, namely in favor of faith. But there is need that a reasonable hope be present that the infant will afterward be educated in a Christian manner. Benedict XIV, Instr. Postremo § 16, 28; Epist. Probe te § 17, 18. 3. If the infant is in danger of death, provided this is done without scandal, and therefore no greater hatred of unbelievers against the Christian religion and savagery against Christians is stirred up; for then provision is made for the good of the offspring, without injury being done to anyone, since by death he is to be withdrawn from all power of men. Provided this is done without scandal, wherefore no force is to be used, and nothing is to be done which brings grave offense of the people. For no one is bound to disturb public order, nor can he excite scandal in order to aid an infant. 4. If, already master of his own reason, he seeks baptism of himself; because in the matter of Religion he is already of his own law, provided it cannot prudently be doubted lest afterward he fall away from the Catholic Religion. Benedict XIV, Const. Postremo § 22. But in doubt concerning the use of reason, the age of seven years suffices. But generally favor is to be shown rather to the child than to the father. For the father is dealing with avoiding a light detriment, namely of paternal power for a moderate time; but the child is dealing with avoiding a most grave detriment, namely eternal damnation. Lugo Resp. Mor. l. 1, d. 4, 6, 5. 5. If the child has been placed outside the care of the parents, as if he had been exposed; for then they would be judged to have renounced their right. Likewise if the parents have been captured in war; for by the right of war captives belong to the victor. 6. If the father offers the child and afterward changes his mind; or if the parents abandon the child, although afterward they reclaim him; for the Church would already have acquired a right. - Benedict XIV, Const. Inter omnigenas, Feb. 2, 1744; Instr. Postremo; Collection of S. C. de P. F. 540 ff.

Yet if the offspring has already been illicitly baptized against the will of the parents, then Benedict XIV in the cited Instr. Postremo prohibits returning him to the parents, because of the certain danger of perversion of the offspring and profanation of the sacrament.

The Church has the right of baptizing infants, the children of heretics, even against the will of their parents, from whom also she can "tear them away, so that they may be educated as Catholics." L. 127. Yet the Church is not accustomed to use this right because of graver inconveniences. But where the Church cannot carry out a right of this kind, "the same seems to have to be said in that case concerning a heretic and any other unbeliever, if the same moral danger is present," lest they afterward be educated as Catholics. S. C. de P. F., Apr. 17, 1727; Holy Office, Jan. 23, 1763. - La Croix 297 ff.; L. 128-132; Lugo Resp. Mor. l. 1, d. 4; St. Thomas 2.2, q. 10, a. 12; 3 p., q. 68, a. 10; Quodl. 2, a. 7; A. S. S. v. 25, p. 247 ff.; E. M.

Can or must baptism ever be repeated? - It can and must be repeated conditionally whenever there is some not-to-be-despised doubt concerning its validity; otherwise it cannot be repeated without grave sin, because an attempt to minister a sacrament to an incapable subject is sacrilege. L. 134; A. S. v. 25, p. 258; Roman Ritual, de Bapt. adult.; E. M.

Are exposed infants to be baptized? - Resp. In the affirmative, if these have been exposed without testimony of baptism conferred, unless from elsewhere it is clear that they were duly baptized. But if they have been exposed with a note attesting that they were baptized, it is controverted. The more common and truer opinion teaches that all these are to be baptized conditionally, "whenever moral certitude is not had concerning baptism conferred, and duly conferred," after diligent inquiry has been made. L. 135; E. M.

Are infants baptized either by midwives or by laymen to be rebaptized? - Resp. In the negative, unless there is a probable suspicion of error in the baptism conferred. Thus the most common and true opinion, says St. Liguori 136, where he recalls a decision of the Sacred Congregation. E. M.

Must those baptized by heretics be rebaptized? - Resp. It is certain by faith from Trent that baptism conferred by heretics is valid when all the things required for the sacrament are used. But in the conversion of heretics, from whatever sect they have come, inquiry must be made concerning the validity of baptism received in heresy. And thus they are to be baptized absolutely, conditionally, or in no way, according as, inquiry having been made, it is certainly clear that baptism was not duly conferred, or the matter is probably doubtful, or nothing has been detected either for validity or for invalidity, or it is certainly clear that baptism was valid. Holy Office, Nov. 20, 1878. - Lugo Resp. Mor. l. 1, d. 2; E. M.

What about the Caesarean operation in order to baptize an infant not yet born? - The operation or Caesarean section consists in this, that the uterus of the pregnant mother is opened so that the fetus may be extracted. A twofold principal question occurs, namely whether or when it can be done, or must be done.

Whether or when can it be done? - When the mother is dead, it is certain that the Caesarean operation can be done, and indeed as soon as her death is established. For if anything opposed it, it would be the danger to the mother; but, from the hypothesis, her death is certainly established; and from another side the spiritual life, indeed perhaps also the temporal life, of the infant can be saved. Yet the Prefect or superior of the place is to be warned, and witnesses approved by him are to be used both for recognizing the death and for greater certainty of the matter, and especially lest the author of the operation be denounced as guilty of homicide. - When the mother is living, the Caesarean operation can never licitly be done whenever there is danger, either proximate or probable, of the mother's death to follow from it, although, if it is not done, the mother and offspring are certainly going to perish. The reason is that this would be the same as directly killing the mother, which is never licit. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 68, a. 11 ad 3 says: "A man must not kill the mother in order to baptize the child." L. 106. Hence the operation cannot be done when a very skilled surgeon is lacking, nor when the mother is so weakened by disease that the operation, otherwise not dangerous, would from the circumstances bring on proximate danger of death.

When the mother is living, the Caesarean operation can licitly be done with these conditions posited: 1. If she cannot give birth naturally, or is going to die before she gives birth, with the greatest danger of the death of the infant before he can be baptized. 2. If from the judgment of a skilled surgeon proximate danger of the mother's death is absent. But such danger can be absent if the mother is robust. 3. If a very skilled surgeon is present. Elbel 60. The reason is clear; for there is no danger, or at least it is very remote, and therefore, if perhaps death follows, it will seem to follow only accidentally.

Whether or when must it be done? - When the mother is dead, it certainly must be done under grave obligation, even against the will or resistance of parents or relatives, if it can be done; because from the law of charity the eternal salvation of the infant must be procured by every care and labor. Thus St. Thomas ibid., where he adds: "Yet if the mother has died, the offspring living in the womb, she must be opened, so that the child may be baptized." Thus also the Roman Ritual establishes. This especially holds if the time of birth is imminent, because since the fetus is more robust, greater hope of baptizing him shines forth. Moreover, careful attention must be used so that the region of the uterus of the deceased woman be kept warm until the operation has been done; for otherwise the infant would more easily depart from life before he could be baptized. Wherefore an obligation of this kind ceases if it is morally certain that the fetus died before the mother, or with the mother, or cannot be estimated as living. Nor indeed should there be delay in completing this operation, since the fetus, the mother being dead, ordinarily certainly dies not much later. - Speaking in itself and speculatively, the operation is to be done even while the mother is living, if from the judgment of experts the infant is to be brought forth alive, and the infant cannot otherwise be baptized, and it can be done without proximate danger of death. The reason is that from the general law of charity anyone is bound to suffer temporal inconvenience to preserve the spiritual and eternal life of his neighbor. Speaking in itself and speculatively; for in practice the confessor must beware lest he urge the mother under grave obligation, because of the excessive danger that, by denying consent, she may die in the state of mortal sin; and thus while he wishes to save the spiritual life of the infant, the mother herself would be damned. Therefore it will be enough to exhort her to consent to the incision. For the rest, since it is clear that the fetus can survive the deceased mother, then there certainly shines forth hope of baptizing him after she has died, and therefore a lesser obligation of incision presses. - But the mother is not bound to undergo the operation if, the operation being omitted, she alone is judged likely to perish; because no one is bound to preserve life by extraordinary and so arduous means. But if that hope of saving the offspring were altogether slight, the mother could, but would not be bound to, undergo the operation, because charity does not so urge in so great uncertainty of the event. And then baptism could at least probably be conferred on the infant remaining in the womb. Cf. n. 402. - L. ib.; E. M.

Note: Certainly anyone, once the mother has died, if the fetus still lives and this is clear, must procure that it be baptized. Wherefore, since with moral certainty it cannot be baptized in the womb itself, the uterus of the mother is to be opened by experts or even by others. But priests, regularly speaking, are not bound by this obligation, because of lack of skill, because of very grave inconveniences on the part of the civil authority, and because of scandal which would be had among the people. Hence from the Decree of the Holy Office, Feb. 15, 1780, a prohibition in this matter was made to missionaries in China: "This extraction of the fetus from the womb of the pregnant and deceased mother, although it is to be disclosed and urged, nevertheless His Holiness expressly cautions and prohibits that missionaries in particular cases involve themselves in ordering the section, much less in performing it." E. M.

The blessing after childbirth according to the Roman Ritual is not to be denied to a woman whose offspring died without baptism. S. R. C., May 19, 1896, n. 3904.