Case XLIII: Protestant Baptism

Sempronia, a Protestant maid-servant, is brought to the hospital in a state of total unconsciousness, suffering from gas poisoning. Two experienced physicians examine the patient and agree in thinking that she will die shortly without recovering consciousness. The Protestant clergyman comes to see her and says that, as he can do nothing, he will not visit her again. The Catholic priest at the hospital learns where Sempronia was born, and remembers that not long ago a convert from the same town had to be conditionally baptized, because repeated inquiries had shown that the Protestant clergy in that town were often careless in the administration of baptism. The thought occurs to the priest that perhaps he ought to baptize Sempronia conditionally, doing so quite privately. She seems to have been in good faith regarding her religion, and, in case her first baptism was invalid, her eternal salvation can be secured if she has never committed any mortal sin, or if since her last sin she has made at least an act of imperfect contrition, or can make one still in a conscious moment before death. " Must I baptize her or not? " This is the question that the Catholic priest asks himself. How ought he to decide?

Let us first answer the following questions:

I. What are we to think of non-Catholic baptism in general?

II. Can and ought Sempronia to be baptized under the circumstances stated above?

III. If she is baptized, what ceremonies should be observed?

I. With regard to baptism by a non-Catholic, we must notice, first of all: (1) that it is undoubtedly valid, if the minister baptizes with the intention, matter, and form requisite for the validity of the Sacrament. De fide Conc. Trident., Sess. VIII. can. IV. (2) It is an absolute certainty that many non-Catholic ministers are by no means careful as to the intention, matter, and form, when they baptize, so that the validity of their baptisms is often very questionable. Hence the Catholic Church has repeatedly decided that, in the case of converts to the Catholic faith, the validity of their baptism, administered by a non-Catholic, must be examined in each individual case; and wherever there is any reasonable doubt regarding it, baptism must be readministered conditionally. The Manuale sacrum (Rituale) of the diocese of Brixen contains the following instructions: “Therefore, those baptized by heretics are not to be baptized conditionally without distinction when they convert to the Catholic religion. But according to the decisions of the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition of November 20, 1878, in the conversion of heretics, from whatever place or whatever sect they come, inquiry must be made into the validity of the baptism received in heresy. But if, after an investigation appropriate to the circumstances of times or places, nothing in favor of validity is discovered, or if a probable doubt concerning the validity of the baptism still remains, let them be baptized secretly under condition.” Ibid. p. 20, 3. Lehmkuhl remarks with regard to this investigation (P. II. nota B, ad num. 19): “It is most truly said that in individual cases it must be inquired by a diligent examination whether the proper matter and form were observed. But not by my opinion alone, but by the judgment of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith itself, that ‘diligent examination’ is plainly understood according as the circumstances permit, and the supreme law must always be that the eternal salvation of the person be placed in safety.”

Regarding the usual result of this investigation Konings says (n. 1264, III. in fine): “After the examination has been carried out in whatever manner is possible, today a doubt will generally remain about baptism conferred by heretics. Therefore it is universally repeated conditionally, not only among us in America, but also in England, France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, and, according to the testimony of Perrone, even in Rome.

It follows therefore that, in the case under discussion, it cannot be ascertained whether Sempronia has been validly baptized or not; and for this reason the Sacrament may be repeated conditionally.

In answer to question II., Ought Sempronia to be baptized? we are of opinion that she ought to be baptized conditionally, if the validity of her first baptism is doubtful, and her present capacity and disposition for a valid and fruitful reception of the Sacrament are at least probable, and if she requires this aid for the good of her soul, and it can be given her without detriment to religion and the public good.

(a) As to her capacity for a valid, and her disposition for a fruitful, reception of holy baptism, theologians are unanimous in requiring of adults at least an habitual intention (in order to render the Sacrament valid) and faith, hope, and the beginning of charity (in order to render its reception efficacious), with at least imperfect contrition for personal sins committed.

These requirements must be considered in detail:

(1) On the subject of the intention requisite in the recipient of the Sacraments, Lehmkuhl remarks: “The validity of sacraments which are effected in the recipient depends upon the person receiving them to the extent that a reception which can be called voluntary is required. This will must be personally present in an adult, that is, one using reason; but in those who have never attained the use of reason, the will of the minister, who acts in the name of Christ and the Church, suffices” (P. II. n. 47).— "The reason is, Marca writes, because God in His present providence over things does not will adults to be justified or sanctified without their own will and consent."—"Justification takes place through the voluntary reception of grace and gifts" (Conc. Trid., Sess. VI. cap. 7).

The intention differs, however, in the different Sacraments. For the valid reception of baptism, it must be at least habitual, i. e., there must be an act of the will tending towards the reception of baptism, and the recipient must not expressly have recalled this intention, although the act of will no longer exists. The reason why the interpretative intention is insufficient in this case is that it would be unfair to impose upon an adult the obligations which he incurs by baptism, without his express consent.

Several theologians think that supernatural attrition constitutes an intention sufficient for the valid reception of baptism, because contrition, coupled with a resolution to do all that is essential to salvation, includes the reception of baptism. Although the correctness of this view is by no means certain, it possesses enough probability to justify in case of necessity the administration of this Sacrament to a dying person.—Cf. St. Alph., Theolog. moral., 1. VI. n. 82; Lehmkuhl, P. II. n. 48, a 77 (2).

(2) Sempronia has given evidence of possessing this intention, for, to the best of her knowledge, she has led a Christian life and has shown that she desires to live and die as a baptized Christian, finding her eternal salvation through baptism and the Christian life. How could her reception of baptism fail to be voluntary? Quomodo susceptio Sacramenti non sit talis, quae dici possit voluntaria? She had not merely the desire to take upon herself the duties of a Christian, but for years she has conscientiously fulfilled them, as she knew them. If a marriage, invalidated because only one party to it really gave the required consent, whilst the other dissembled and merely feigned to give consent, is subsequently to be validated (juxta sent, communem et veriorem, S. Alph. 1. VI. n. 1 1 14) there is no need for the innocent party to renew the consent, because it continues to be revealed by living with the other. Just as here the intentio matrimonii virtually continues, so in Sempronia's case does the intentio baptismi continue habitually. If the one is enough to secure the validity of marriage, why should not the other suffice for baptism?

If one who through want of intention receives the Sacrament invalidly, Pope Innocent III says: "But one who never consents, but rather contradicts, receives neither the reality nor the character of the Sacrament" (Marc. 1434). It cannot be maintained of Sempronia that she never consents but rather contradicts. " But," some one may say, " if she were fully conscious, she would most likely object to the repetition of baptism by a Catholic priest." This supposition does not, however, exclude the intention required for a valid reception of the Sacrament, for she is baptized, not on the ground of any consent that she might give if she were conscious, but on that of her habitual intention, which we may fairly assume her to have formed unconditionally and never to have recalled.

Another objection which might be raised is this: St. Alphonsus teaches that, in dealing with a heretic who does not usually ask for sacramental absolution, we must not infer, because he displays some signs of contrition, that he has any intention to make a confession, and he cannot be given conditional absolution when he is in danger of death (1. VI. n. 483). Our answer to this objection is that the Saint is speaking of heretics who "have the greatest abhorrence of confession—but Sempronia does not abhor baptism; rather, she wills it; therefore..." The case would be different if she had expressly formed, and never withdrawn, a resolution never to accept the help of a Catholic priest. As, however, there is no evidence of such a resolution, we infer, from all that is reported of Sempronia, that there were good reasons for believing her to possess the intention necessary to a valid reception of baptism, and that she was a subjectum capax of this Sacrament.

(3) But does she possess the dispositions requisite for a fruitful reception of baptism?

This is a point that must certainly be taken into consideration, for, if we were sure that the baptismal grace could have no effect in Sempronia, because of her defective dispositions, the Sacrament could not be administered, as it would be useless and futile. On the subject of the dispositions required for baptism, St. Thomas writes (in IV. dist. 6, q. 1, a. 3, ad 5um): "For a person to prepare himself to receive grace in baptism, faith is required beforehand in adults, but not charity, because preceding attrition suffices even if it is not contrition." There is no mention here of hope and rudimentary love (amor initialis), which, with faith, are the dispositions necessary to justification (Trid., Sess. VI. cap. 6), because the attrition mentioned comprises both. In practise, a man who knows and believes the truths necessary to salvation (necessaria de necessitate medii) generally possesses contrition as well as faith. (Cf. S. Alph., Theol. mor., 1. II. n. 8, and especially Hom. Apost., T. IV. n. 13.)

If therefore the person receiving baptism has ever made these acts of virtue, and has not nullified them by contrary acts, or made his act of contrition void by subsequent mortal sin, he no sooner is baptized than the grace given by the Sacrament begins to have its effects; otherwise it remains latent until the recipient, by an act of at least imperfect contrition, calls it into activity. (Cf. S. Alph., Theol. mor., I. VI. n. 87, a 139.) If Sempronia was in good faith as a Protestant, we may fairly assume that she practised these virtues, and that on her part there was nothing to stand in the way of the conditional repetition of her baptism.

(b) We have, finally, to consider Sempronia's spiritual needs, and the possible hindrances of a higher nature, which may prevent any attempt to help her.

(1) There is no urgent reason for thinking that Sempronia is in a state of mortal sin, and therefore, in her unconscious condition, in extrema necessitate spirituali, "that the danger of damnation is so imminent that, morally speaking, she cannot escape it without the help of another" (Müller, 1. II. § 57, n. 8), yet, as she is now absolutely helpless, there is certainly some reason to fear for her eternal salvation.

Sacramenta sunt propter homines; and a Catholic priest can easily, and probably successfully, come to the aid of this wandering sheep in great, possibly extreme, danger of eternal damnation. Indeed, it would be difficult to find good grounds for not even thinking him bound to perform this charitable work, belonging to his official duty.

(2) Among non-Catholics it may happen, under similar circumstances, that baptism cannot be administered without giving rise to public scandal, and to serious danger to either the Catholic religion or the spiritual welfare of the faithful. In such a case, as Konings rightly remarks (n. 1261), the good of the individual must not take precedence: "for the common good is to be preferred to the private good." There cannot, however, be any danger in connection with the baptism of Sempronia. Her burial as a Protestant, if she really dies, cannot be prevented, but it will cause no scandal, for her baptism will be absolutely private. She may recover her health, and continue to be a Protestant, but this possibility can no more be an obstacle to her baptism than it would be to that of a child of non-Catholic parents, of whom, if in danger of death, St. Alphonsus says: "It is certain that the child can and ought to be baptized, even against the parents’ will, if the child is in danger of death. Thus commonly, and so forth." (1. VI. n. 129). We may also quote Lehmkuhl (P. II. n. 84): "In ordinary circumstances the Church is accustomed, unless danger of death is present, to await the consent of either parent and a probable hope of Catholic education."

(3) Some one may say: "If Sempronia ought to be baptized, then every non-Catholic who is in danger of death and has lost consciousness ought to be baptized or absolved conditionally; but this is quite contrary to the practice of the Church." In reply we may argue that the reasons and circumstances which have been brought forward in favor of Sempronia's conditional baptism do not exist in the case of every non-Catholic. Where they do exist, the rule, which we quote from Lehmkuhl (P. II. n. 78, not. 2), is certainly not opposed to the practice of the Church: "Therefore, when according to the teaching of many writers a person deprived of the senses can be baptized, there is no reason why it should not be done; indeed, charity seems to impel one to it."

We can now arrive at the following conclusion from the answers to questions I and II:

As the validity of Sempronia's first baptism is doubtful, and her present capacity and disposition for baptism are probable; as, moreover, her spiritual state seems to require this assistance and there is no just obstacle to its administration, she can and may be conditionally baptized; and it is surely an act of Christian charity showing true zeal for souls, if the Catholic priest baptizes her conditionally: si non es baptizata et si capax es, ego te baptizo, etc. It would be a mistake to insert the condition " si disposita es," for this intention on the part of the priest would render the Sacrament null and void if the disposition only developed later, and it would quite frustrate the object of the Sacrament in this case.

If there was any positive reason to suppose that Sempronia desired sacramental absolution, she ought to be absolved conditionally (si capax es) after her baptism. If time and opportunity permit, the Bishop's authorization must be asked for absolving a person from heresy, since the case belongs to the forum externum Episcopi.

In the same way some positive ground would have to be present, to justify our assuming in Protestants any desire to receive Extreme Unction.

III. What ceremonies ought to be used in administering baptism to Sempronia?

It is a private baptism to one in extremis; hence no godparents are needed: "although a sponsor need not necessarily be employed in private baptism, one may nevertheless fittingly be employed, and it is more excellent that one be employed" (St. Alph., Theol. mor., 1. VI. n. 147, praenot. II.).

With regard to the actual baptism the S. Rit. Cong., on September 23, 1820, issued the following regulations for private baptism of persons in extremis:

( 1 ) All that in the Rituale precedes the actual baptism may be omitted, and the person be at once baptized in the ordinary way: pouring water three times upon the person’s head in the form of a Cross, saying: ego te baptizo, etc.

(2) If the priest has no baptismal water at hand, and there is danger in delay, he may use ordinary natural water.

(3) After the baptism, he is to anoint the person on the brow with chrism, if he has any with him, and is to say meanwhile the words prescribed in the Rituale: Deus omnipotens, etc. (4) He is to give the white cloth and the lighted taper with the usual words.

(5) If the person recovers health, the omitted ceremonies, that ought to precede baptism, are to be performed in the church: "but the omitted ceremonies must never be supplied outside the church," as de Herdt says (S. Lit. prax. de Bapt., n. 6).

(6) All these regulations hold good, and are to be observed as far as possible, in the conditional baptism of a non-Catholic, as Konings has shown (n. 1264, I. and VI.).—Johann Schwienbacher, C.SS.R.