Case XXXIV: Using the Form for Infant Baptism in the Baptism of Adults

Applied correction from Woywod's opening insert: As to CASE XXXIV it may be remarked that the New Code in Canon 755 gives to all the bishops of the Church the faculty to allow the use of the infant baptism ceremonies in the baptism of adults for a grave and reasonable cause.

Cajus, a priest, received into the Church and baptized a woman convert. When asked by a brother-priest if he did not feel embarrassed by the number and frequency of the prostrations and signs of the cross "super oculos, os et pectus" contained in the form for adult baptism, he replied that he had not used the form for adults, but had baptized the person with the form prescribed for the baptism of infants, by virtue of a general indult granted by the Holy See to all the bishops of the United States. When his fellow-priest denied that there existed any such general permission for the whole of the United States, Cajus appealed to "The Priests' New Ritual," recently published by the John Murphy Company, of Baltimore, with the "Imprimatur" of his Eminence Cardinal Gibbons, and to the Prayer Book, published by order of the third PI. Council of Baltimore, and approved by the Apostolic Delegate of the Council, in both of which books it is expressly stated that "by special permission of the Holy See, this form (i. e., infant baptism) may be used in the United States for the baptism of adults."

On the other hand, Cajus' fellow-priest appealed to Konings (II. 1,264) and to Sabetti (n. 666), where it is expressly denied that all the bishops of the United States have a general faculty to use the short form in baptizing adults. In their perplexity, now, both Cajus and his friend ask: Have the bishops of the United States a general permission from the Holy See to use the form for infant baptism in the baptism of adults?

As there seems to exist considerable confusion on this point, we take the liberty of giving a somewhat extended answer.

On October 24, 1829, the bishops of the first Provincial Synod of Baltimore, i. e., the Archbishop of Baltimore, the Bishops of Bardstown, Charleston, Cincinnati, St. Louis, and Boston, and the Vicar Apostolic of Philadelphia petitioned Pius VIII to grant permission to the bishops of the United States to use the form for infant baptism in the baptism of adults. The reasons given by the bishops for their petition to the Holy See were that the form for adult baptism could not well be used in this country, because “certain ceremonies, such as prostrations and signs of the cross over the eyes, mouth, and breast, could cause scandal, especially when girls or women are to be baptized.” This request of the bishops was granted by the Cong. de P. F. October 16, 1830, "ad viginti annos" (Coll. Lac. T. III. col. 34). Therefore, there was a general permission granted by the Holy See, up to the year 1850, to use, throughout the United States, the shorter form in the baptism of adults.

In the year 1852, the bishops of the first PI. Council of Baltimore again petitioned the Holy See that this privilege be renewed, either "in perpetuum," or at least for another twenty years. The bishops' petition was as follows: “Since the very grave reasons advanced by the Fathers of the First Provincial Council of Baltimore in the year of salvation 1829, when they asked the Holy Father that in these Provinces it be lawful to use for baptizing adults the form found in the Roman Ritual for the baptism of infants, still remain in force and indeed seem likely to become graver day by day, the Fathers decree that the Holy See is to be petitioned that the privilege then granted for twenty years in accordance with the Fathers’ prayers now be made perpetual, or at least be granted again for twenty years.” To this petition, the Cong. de P. F. answered, August 30, 1852, as follows: “These prayers having been reported by the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Lord Raphael Cardinal Fornari at the general meeting of the Sacred Congregation held on August 30, 1852, the Most Eminent Fathers judged that His Holiness should be petitioned for an extension of the indult for five years, and in such a way that meanwhile the Bishops should endeavor gradually to approach the observance of the rite prescribed in the Roman Ritual for the baptism of adults.”

By this decree, the privilege of using the short form throughout the United States was extended to the year 1857.

In the year 1858, the second Provincial Council of St. Louis, there being present the Archbishop of St. Louis, the Bishops of Nashville, Milwaukee, Santa Fe, Alton, Dubuque, Chicago, and St. Paul, and the Vicar Apostolic of the Indian Territory, petitioned the Holy See, “that in the baptism of adults it be lawful to use the form employed in the baptism of infants until the Holy See shall decree otherwise.” To this the Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith replied on February 6, 1859: “It graciously assented to the favor according to the prayers, and meanwhile let them take care to introduce the formula for adults prescribed by the Roman Ritual.”

By this decree there was granted to all the dioceses composing, in 1859, the Province of St. Louis, the privilege of using the short form in adult baptism, "usque dum S. Sedes aliter statuerit." As the Holy See, up to the present, has not decreed otherwise, all the territory comprised in 1859 by the dioceses of St. Louis, Nashville, Milwaukee, Santa Fe, Alton, Dubuque, Chicago, St. Paul, and the Indian Territory, still enjoy the privilege of using the form for infant baptism in the baptism of adults. “Such an indult was granted to the Province of St. Louis on February 6, 1859, and is still in force (until it is revoked) in all the dioceses which the Province of St. Louis comprised in that year 1859” (Wapelhorst, Comp. Liturg. p. 413).

In the meantime the general permission for the whole of the United States to use the short form in baptizing adults expired with the year 1857, and except in cases where it was renewed to individual bishops, as in the case of the St. Louis Province, the bishops of the United States were obliged to use the long form in adult baptism.

In the year 1866, the bishops of the second PI. Council of Baltimore petitioned the Holy See “that the Supreme Pontiff might deign to extend to all, for ten or twenty years, the privilege formerly granted to certain dioceses of this region until the year 1870, by which it is lawful to employ for baptizing adults the shorter formula established for infants.” To this the Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith replied on January 24, 1868: “Furthermore, the Sacred Congregation judged that the Bishops ought to have recourse to it when the period of the last concession had expired.” That is to say, that in 1866, when the bishops petitioned the Holy See for an extension of this privilege, there were some dioceses which were enjoying the privilege, and the same would continue to enjoy it up to the year 1870, not by virtue of any general indult granted to all the bishops of the United States, but by reason of a special extension made to some individual bishops. The bishops of the Province of St. Louis, of course, were at this time enjoying this privilege, not only until the year 1870, but until revoked.

O'Kane (Rubrics, n. 459) says: "In the United States of America until recently the ceremonies prescribed for infant baptism were used in the baptism of adults also, in virtue of faculties granted by the Holy See. In 1852 these faculties were renewed only for five years, with an intimation that they should not be again renewed; and accordingly since 1857, the American clergy are required to observe what is prescribed by the rubrics for adult baptism." What O'Kane says here is true, in this sense, that wherever, in the United States, since 1857, the form for infant baptism is used in the baptism of adults, it is used by virtue not of any general permission to all the bishops of the United States, but of a special indult obtained by individual bishops. Wherever no special permission has been obtained since 1857, the clergy are obliged to use the form for adults in the baptism of adults. However, as it has been renewed since then in particular cases, as in the case of the St. Louis Province and the tenth Provincial Council of Baltimore, what O'Kane says is not strictly correct.

O'Kane takes it for granted that after 1857, the permission would not be renewed to the American bishops, neither collectively nor individually, on account of the intimation given by the Cong. de P. F. to that effect. In this, however, he was mistaken. In 1869 the bishops of the tenth Provincial Council of Baltimore petitioned the Holy See for an extension of the privilege “earnestly and with one voice they judged that the Holy See should be petitioned to extend a concession of this kind, for at least ten years, to all the dioceses of the Province of Baltimore.”

The Cong. de P. F. granted this, but not for ten years, but only for five.

Outside the territory included, in 1859, by the Province of St. Louis, the solution of the question as to the privilege of using the short form for the baptism of adults depends on a question of fact. Have the respective bishops applied for and obtained an extension of this privilege? The question is not easily answered. Father Smith (notes on second PI. Con. Bait. n. 214) has this to say: "To this question we can not return a satisfactory answer. In the diocese of Newark nothing definite is known by the clergy. The bishop may possess such a privilege, but the fact has never been communicated to the priests, and they are left to guess whether or not the faculty has been prolonged. The same, we are informed, is the case in various other dioceses. Hence a diversity of practice in this regard is gradually becoming prevalent. Some priests take it for granted that these privileges have been renewed again; others, however, doubt this. The former, of course, use the ceremonies of infant baptism, even in the baptism of adults; the latter are not always consistent in the matter, some of them using the short form, others the long one. It would, therefore, seem desirable to have some positive measures adopted on this point by our prelates."

As regards the case of Cajus, we answer that if he is located within the territory comprised, in 1859, by the Province of St. Louis, that is to say, if he is located in the archdioceses of St. Louis, Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul, Dubuque, or Santa Fe, or in the dioceses of Nashville, Alton, or the Indian Territory, or in any diocese that, since 1859, has sprung from the aforesaid dioceses, then he did right in using the short form for baptizing an adult. If he is located outside that territory, he must inquire whether his bishop has obtained any special faculties in the matter. If his bishop has not obtained any special permission, or if Cajus can not establish the fact, he is obliged to observe the general law of the Church, which is to baptize adults with the rubrical form prescribed for the baptism of adults, unless he judge prudently that grave scandal might be given by its use, which may easily be, according to the Fathers of many American Councils, “especially when girls or women are to be baptized.”

The words of the Prayer Book, published by order of the third PI. Council of Baltimore, and of the "Priests' New Ritual," stating that the short form may be used throughout the United States, by general permission of the Holy See, should be changed, since they are not true.