Case LVIII: Conditional Baptisms

In a recent publication a priest gives his opinion upon the repetition sub conditione, of Baptisms administered, in cases of necessity, by lay persons, midwives particularly, and what the procedure should be in such cases. The theoretical principles are, briefly: the priest must inquire how the lay Baptism was administered when he will find one of three cases to be the fact:

(a) The Baptism was without doubt administered validly, and then he must not repeat it, but merely supply the ceremonies according to the ritual; or

(b) The Baptism was beyond doubt invalidly given, and then he certainly must baptize the child; or he finds

(c) Neither validity nor invalidity of the Baptism is certain, one is as doubtful as the other, and then he must re-baptize the child sub-conditione: Si non es baptizatus.

But what about the practise? For this the priest quoted gives two rules:

1, In any case it is not allowed to re-baptize, even sub-conditione, until after inquiry has been made about the validity of the Baptism given.

2. It is not necessary to make a thorough inquiry, if the midwife, physician, or other person, is known to the priest, and if from previous questioning he is sure of her or his correct administration of Baptism, a brief question will suffice then in order to shape his mode of action accordingly.

Will this mode of procedure always and everywhere be correct?

Above all, the inquiry sub 1 required will be superfluous in every case where the person is not a Catholic. In reference to this LEHMKUHL writes (Theol. Mor., II, p. 17): “Therefore, for America I plainly think that sufficient certainty of Baptism duly conferred can never be had, unless perhaps in an individual case you have Catholic witnesses wholly worthy of belief.... Indeed, unbelief, or even carelessness among non-Catholics of good faith, grows more from day to day in such a way that the same must now be said almost everywhere.”

Inquiries will be superfluous, furthermore, in the case of “madams” or other persons who are reliable neither religiously, morally nor personally, and their claim to have administered Baptism correctly need not be heeded. Such persons are likely to knowingly deny mistakes, in order not to be embarrassed before priests and sponsors. But even in the case of other persons not very well instructed, one can not depend upon even the most careful inquiries with the certainty required for the first and most necessary of the Sacraments. In almost every instance they will claim to be quite sure of having administered Baptism correctly, as it will appear to them impossible to make a mistake in such a simple thing as Baptism. All those trifles, however, that are sufficient to render Baptism uncertain, and to make necessary its repetition, that need the vigilance even of the trained priest, those are often fatal to lay-Baptisms. They escape the notice of lay persons and even by minute examination can not always be ascertained. It is somewhat of a task to ascertain from the average midwife (or physician, etc.) if she or he used natural water? If she made correct use of the correct formula? What of the intention, of corruptions of the baptismal formula, of leaving out words? Errors will easily occur in the hurried, or careless, administration of. lay-Baptism, without attracting attention of the lay person administering the Sacrament, and without possibility of detection afterward. These “trifles” suffice, according to theologians, to allow Baptism to be repeated conditionally. Who, then, will find fault with the priest who, in the case of the average midwife, or other lay person, only insufficiently instructed, omits all examination because he can not depend upon the answers, and without further ceremony re-baptizes conditionally to make sure that each infant shall validly receive Baptism? An exception is to be made, and Baptism need not be repeated, if correct lay-Baptism is attested by an eye and ear witness, whose knowledge and conscientiousness are a safe guarantee for his statement. But where is such testis omni exceptione major likely?

If the midwife, physician, or other lay person, is God-fearing, conscientious, and well instructed about the details of the administration of Baptism, about intention, matter and form, and application, if it be known, furthermore, that even under the most difficult circumstances this person gives lay-Baptism correctly, with composure and presence of mind, then the priest, as is said sub 2 above, need not again and again put the same questions to this person, in every case of lay-Baptism administered by her, or him, only to receive the same answers. But even with such persons the diligens examen required by theologians has a purpose, saltem, prout adjuncta ferant (LEHMKUHL, Theol. Mor., II, p. 16).

One should particularly inquire whether it was a special case, whether there were extraordinary circumstances. If the priest then finds no special reason for conditional re-Baptism, he will omit it. But even with such well instructed, reliable persons, this should not become the rule. The omission of re-baptizing must rather be the rare exception. This is plainly prescribed by the Congreg. de Propag. F., dato September 8, 1869 (LEHMKUHL), that, namely, children baptized by lay catechists are not re-baptized quibusdam “except in cases” where it is possible that no probable doubt whatsoever arise concerning the validity of the Baptism, although these lay catechists are examined at least once a year as to their reliability. In this matter applies the principle that “the Baptism should rather be repeated than not spent at all” (GOEPFERT).

Judged upon these principles those diocesan precepts that impose the obligation of invariable re-Baptism of children baptized by lay persons are fully justified. Circumstances, such as lack of instruction, indifferentism, etc., may prevail so generally, that notwithstanding the most searching inquiries there will in individual cases be reason for doubt, and hence for a repetition of Baptism. Such diocesan practise does not contradict dogma. It will always except individual cases in which the validity of lay-Baptism is proved beyond doubt. If, for instance, a priest has, in case of danger, provisionally baptized a newly born infant without the prescribed ceremonies, it would never occur to anyone, nor be required by any diocesan decree, that there must also be a conditional re-Baptism. The “priest baptizing,” so Scherer says in his Manual of Canon Law, “is not obliged, according to present practise, to engage in any lengthy examination about the validity of a lay-Baptism, he may rather presume its invalidity. The assertion that such indiscriminate re-baptizing of lay-baptized children contracts irregularity is not supported by the law.”

Fr. Neuhold.