Case LXXIII: An Explanation of the Words: “No One Enclosed in the Mother’s Womb Should Be Baptized.”

Applied correction from Woywod's opening insert: CASE LXXIII is solved authoritatively by Canon 746 of the Code which lays down rules for various circumstances of difficult child birth and the baptism of the endangered child. (1) The infant enclosed in the mother's womb shall not be baptized as long as there is probable hope to baptize it after birth. (2) If the head of the child appears and the danger of death is imminent, it shall be baptized on the head and must not be baptized again conditionally when the child is born alive. (3) If any other limb appears first and there is danger of immediate death the child should be baptized conditionally on that limb. In that case when the child is born alive it shall be baptized again conditionally. (4) If the mother dies before the child is born, those whose duty it is shall see to it that the fetus is extracted from the womb and if it is certain that the child is alive it shall be baptized absolutely, if life is doubtful it shall be baptized conditionally, viz., "si vivis." (5) If the fetus was baptized in the womb (which might have been attempted by means of some instrument), it shall when born alive be baptized again conditionally.

^* By J. Rieder, D.D.

In the Roman Ritual we find among the instructions preceding the baptismal rite (tit. II. cap. I. n. 16), the direction: Nemo in utero matris clausus baptizari debet. This sentence may attract notice, as it appears to contradict that which now is universally taught in moral and pastoral theology.

There may be asked two questions, viz.: 1. Is it allowed, or even an obligation, to baptize an infant still in the mother's womb, if otherwise there is danger of the infant dying without Baptism? And presuming that by such Baptism the applicatio materiae was possible, and that also the forma was correctly used, the second question would be: Is such Baptism valid?

It is universally taught at present, in regard to the first question, that it is allowed, and even obligatory, in a case of necessity to baptize the infant in the mother's womb. The second question Gury answers: (Theol. Mor. pars II. n. 239): More probably affirmative, if the child is touched with water in the mother’s womb by means of some instrument, because such an infant, since he now exists as a human being in the state of pilgrimage, can validly be baptized. Considering the matter theoretically, I think a more positive statement should be made as follows: Such Baptism is without doubt valid, provided the applicatio materiae properly took place. For with this provision I see no reason why the validity of the Baptism can be at all doubtful. “For the subject of baptism is every human being in the state of pilgrimage who has not yet been baptized.” In these cases, however, it will generally remain somewhat uncertain whether the applicatio materiae properly took place, and for this reason already there would pro praxi be advisable a conditional repetition of the Baptism if the infant subsequently be born alive. This is indeed decreed by a decision of the Sacred Congregation, of the 12th July, 1794, in which the conditional repetition of a Baptism administered in the womb is ordained in these words: A fetus baptized on the crown of the head in the womb is, after birth, to be baptized again conditionally.

If, however, the conditional repetition of the Baptism would be argued by appeal to the sentence: One who has not been born cannot be reborn, i. e., in order that one may be re-born, he must first of all be born, we can not agree with this argument for intrinsic reasons, and we will show below how this sentence, frequently met within ancient writers, has frequently been misunderstood.

With a clearness and precision all his own, Lehmkuhl thus expresses himself (Theol. Mor. II. 74): There can scarcely be doubt about the validity of baptism conferred upon an infant in the mother’s womb if the infant’s head, wholly freed from the afterbirth, can be touched with water either by means of an instrument or otherwise. Yet there are some who think that a human being must first be a separate member of external human society before he can be baptized. Therefore, although, considered theoretically, scarcely any reason for doubting the validity of the baptism presents itself, nevertheless, because the Sacred Congregation of the Council, on 12 July 1794, in the case of Sutrina, said that a baptism which had been conferred upon an infant in this manner was to be repeated conditionally, the authority of the Sacred Congregation prevents us from declaring such a baptism altogether certain. Therefore, in danger it is certainly to be conferred in this way; but afterward, if the infant comes forth alive from the womb, it is to be repeated conditionally.

Similarly, but more pointedly, is the matter put by the Analecta Ecclesiastica (of April, 1896): It is indeed accepted by all that, when birth is imminent, an infant may be baptized with the due application of matter and form even though it is entirely hidden in the mother’s womb, and that nothing can be brought forward either from the Scriptures or from Tradition which demonstrates such a baptism to be ineffectual, even probably. There is, therefore, no doubt whatever in regard to the validity of such Baptism in itself. Before going further, we wish to comment on the words of Lehmkuhl: “If the infant’s head, wholly freed from the afterbirth (membrane or caul),... can be touched with water.” In order to speak of the validity without doubt of such Baptism, this condition is under all circumstances required and indispensable. Gury, it is true, holds (l. c.): Nor is it an objection that the child is still enveloped in the afterbirth, because this is, as it were, a part of the infant, and considers, therefore, the Baptism even probabilius valid, in case the infant is still enclosed in this caul. But here we must give ear to the physicians. The very reliable Dr. Capellmann (Pastoral Medicine, p. 139); protests against this view of Gury's, by reason of the results of the history of development. "The caul," he says, "is not at all in its totality a pars infantis. The caul consists, until birth, of three plainly distinguishable, even separable, teguments. The two inner teguments, the amnion and chorion, may be considered part of the infantile body, inasmuch as they are produced by the embryo itself. The outside tegument, however, the so-called decidua, originates from the mucus of the womb (uterus), and therefore belongs to the mother's body; and can not be regarded at all as pars infantis. It follows that the Baptism of an infant enveloped in this caul or veil can only be of very doubtful validity."

If, however, it will be asked, Baptism in such cases, according to the teaching of theologians, can and must be administered puero in utero matris, and if no doubt can exist as to the validity of the Baptism itself, what meaning can be attributed to the words of the Rituale: Nemo in utero matris clausus baptizari debet?

In order to give a satisfactory answer, we shall have to view the question from the historical standpoint.

In the above discussion we have only learned the present teaching of theologians, but it must be mentioned that to the question utrum puer in utero matris clausus could be baptized, the ancient writers gave an answer entirely different. From the time of Petrus Lombardus to that of Gabriel Biel (+1495) they all answered this question with one accord—negatively. They do so with recourse to St. Augustine, and to the part of the Corpus Juris (cap. Qui maternis dist. 4 de Consecratione), which says: “Because one who has not been born according to Adam cannot be regenerated according to Christ. Hence the rule: One who has not been born cannot be reborn.”

Let us select from the number of these writers the Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas. He deals with our question in the third part of his Summa (quaest. 68 art. 11). under the head Whether children situated in their mothers’ wombs are to be baptized?

First of all he states, in accordance with his method, some reasons which appear to favor the administration of such Baptism; for instance, that the grace of Christ must be more efficacious than sin, and since these infants are stained with original sin, therefore it seems there must be a possibility of imparting to them the grace of Christ, by Baptism. Furthermore, it seems that such infant is part of the mother; that if, therefore, one baptized the mother, all that within her would be simultaneously baptized. Contrary to this view, St. Thomas goes on to say, is what St. Augustine wrote in his letter to Dardanus: “No one is reborn unless he is first born.” But baptism is a certain spiritual regeneration. Therefore no one ought to be baptized before he is born from the womb; and the conclusio reads: Since the body of an infant existing in the mother’s womb cannot be washed with water, it is clear that an infant cannot be baptized in the mother’s womb. Entering into the merit of the question itself, St. Thomas then adds: I answer that it must be said that it is necessary for baptism that the body of the person to be baptized be washed in some manner with water, since baptism is a certain washing. The body however, of the infant, before it is born from the womb, cannot in any manner be washed with water; unless perhaps it be said that the baptismal washing by which the mother’s body is washed reaches the child existing in the womb. But this cannot be, both because the child’s soul, to whose sanctification baptism is ordered, is distinct from the mother’s soul, and because the body of the ensouled child is already formed and consequently distinct from the mother’s body; and therefore the baptism by which the mother is baptized does not overflow to the offspring existing in her womb. Hence Augustine.... And so it remains that infants existing in their mothers’ wombs cannot be baptized in any manner.

Thus St. Thomas, and with him agree the theologians of the following centuries; even Billuart (+1757) remarks to this: It seems more probable that, in the case proposed, the infant can be baptized neither lawfully nor validly. This is the opinion of all the ancients and, among the more recent authors, Habert, Gotti, Tournely, Berti, etc., against certain other more recent authors.

It will not escape the reader's attention that St. Thomas and the other ancient theologians viewed this question differently from St. Augustine; Thomas and the others considered it impossible that the materia baptismi could be applied to an infant in the mother's womb. It always occurred to them, that because of the inability to reach the infant, the mother would again be baptized with the intention of thereby imparting the grace of the Sacrament to the infant, and this they considered perfectly inoperative. Hence their dictum that infants in the mother's womb can neither be lawfully nor validly baptized. Progress in medical science on the one hand and experience on the other has taught us, that it is quite possible, especially instante partu, and not even difficult, to apply the water of regeneration to infants in the mother's womb, and consequently the answer to our question has become a different one.

For the first time this more recent view of the case is met with in Biel's writings, who says: It must be said briefly that a child cannot be baptized in the mother’s womb, because in the mother’s womb he cannot be washed or touched.... But if, as some hold, the child still hidden in the mother’s womb, although joined to the mother, were washed or wiped with water touching his body, with the due intention and form, the child would truly be baptized and saved. (In IV. dist. IV. q. 2 art. 3 dub. 2.)

Similarly Diana and Laymann express themselves. In the middle of the seventeenth century Pignatelli wrote, at Rome, in this sense, and he stated that the Cardinal Vicar caused a thorough examination of the obstetrices, to ascertain if and how in these cases the applicatio materiae was possible. As a result of this examination the Cardinal Vicar adopted this new view and put it into practice. P. Qualdus defends this opinion most strongly and elaborately in his work which appeared at Padua in 1710. In an interesting and lucid manner Benedict XIV treats our question in his work De Synodo Diocesana (lib. VII. cap. 5). There is no doubt whatever, he first remarks, that an infant can not be baptized in the mother's womb, if it is impossible to apply the water, and it would be heretical to hold that the infant would participate in the Sacrament, when administered to the mother in its stead, as already explained by St. Augustine (lib. 6 Contra Julianum c. 5), and as St. Thomas also teaches. But the question, the learned Pope continues, is a different one; it is: Whether, when the opening of the mother’s womb has been opened, as happens at the beginning of labor, an infant whose little body, although no part of it has come forth into the light, can nevertheless be touched with water, at least through a small tube, is validly baptized. It is quite remarkable, he states, how theologians differ on this subject, and he names those who are pro, as well as those who are contra. He himself sides with those who are pro tali baptismo and refutes the opponent's arguments. No final decision having been rendered by the Church he considers it the duty of pastors, for this reason, to instruct the midwives, that in such cases they should baptize conditionally, and likewise that in the event of the infant being born alive baptism should be conditionally repeated.

The opponents of the lawfulness and validity of such Baptism support their argument by two reasons. Firstly, they say, it is not possible to apply the materia Sacramenti, and secondly they quote the words of Christ: Unless a man be born again (John iii) and deduce therefrom with recurrence to St. Augustine and the Corpus Juris, that man must first be born before he can be regenerated by water and the Holy Ghost.

As far as the first reason is concerned, that is settled by the opinion and experience of the physicians. In regard to the second reason, St. Augustine, to be sure, repeatedly advances this argument, but, as Benedict XIV says, the context plainly shows that the holy doctor intended only to show the uselessness and invalidity of a Baptism administered to the mother and intended for the infant.

This is the purpose and the meaning of the passage of the Gratian Decree. This is also exactly the case with St. Thomas who, as shown by the quoted words, only answers in the negative sense because he considered it impossible that the infant could be reached with water. The passage in St. John (c. iii) finally must be taken and understood in its logical sense, and an exegesis, in which the words are taken literally, has no value. How far from the intention of the Church herself is such a narrow exegesis, may be seen by her action in presenting to our veneration, on the 31st August, a saint with the surname Nonnatus. We read in the Breviary also of St. Aloysius seemed to be born for heaven before being born for earth. Should this not suffice, we might, as Benedict XIV (l. c.) writes, with a certain right consider him as born, who from the more hidden recesses of the mother’s womb descends to the opening of the womb and is handled by the midwife’s hands.” Indeed the Church herself ordains (Rituale R. tit. II. c. 1, 16): If the infant has put forth its head and danger of death is imminent, let it be baptized on the head; and afterward, if it survives, it is not to be baptized again. In this case, too, the nativitas has not taken place completely, and yet it is not required that this Baptism be repeated, not even conditionally.

We believe we have proved that appeal can be made neither to the Holy Scriptures, nor to tradition, nor to the teaching of the Church, in order to argue for the unlawfulness and invalidity of the Baptism in utero matris; on the contrary, A child still existing in the mother’s womb can, when necessity presses, be baptized lawfully and validly; nevertheless, it must be baptized again conditionally if it comes forth alive into the light; this appears to follow from the response of the Sacred Congregation dated 12 July 1794. We say "fluere videtur," for this decision of the Congregation though a precedent for judging similar cases, is not a strict universal law, it was applied to an individual case and even if the physician asserted that he most certainly sprinkled the infant's head with water, it may still be thought that the Congregation did not place implicit belief in this assertion, and for this reason ordained the conditional repetition of the Baptism. If, therefore, some one should not take this answer of the Congregation to be a general strict command to repeat the Baptism in every case, he would not appear to be altogether without reason. There seems to result from the decision quoted the fact that in every such case Baptism may be repeated conditionally. And it will be the safe way to do it in every case.

We return at last to our question: What do the words of the Rituale mean: Nemo utero matris clausus baptizari debet, what is the sense of these words? It appears that these words should be supplemented by the apposition: absque necessitate, and the meaning would be: As a general rule it is prohibited to baptize an infant in the mother's womb, except in case where there exists danger that the infant will not be born alive, and would, therefore, die without Baptism. Yet this explanation does not seem to fit very well, for in the same chapter of the Rituale such emergency and extraordinary cases are already discussed.

Hence we believe these words of the Rituale are to be taken in the meaning of the ancient writers so that they may be paraphrased somewhat in the manner following: No one enclosed in the mother’s womb ought to be baptized, because an infant so hidden in the womb that no part of it can be touched with water cannot be baptized in any manner, nor would it benefit the infant in any way if the mother’s body were washed in its place. The Rituale here, still from the standpoint of the ancient theologians, only rejects the heretical opinion, that a child reposing entirely in the mother's womb may have to it imparted the grace of regeneration, by rebaptizing the mother. The question, however, as at present answered by theologians, regarding the lawfulness and validity of Baptism properly administered in such an extraordinary case, the Rituale does not take up.