Case XXXVI: Where Should a New-Born Child Be Baptized?

Titia, until her marriage a year ago, lived with her parents in the parish of N., where Cajus is pastor. Upon her marriage, she went to live with her husband in a neighboring parish, some twenty miles distant, and has lived there ever since. A few weeks ago, about to become a mother, she returned to her parents' home and there gave birth to a strong, healthy boy. The following day Titia's mother took the baby to Cajus, the parish priest of N., to have it baptized. Cajus at first demurred, thinking that the baby ought to be taken to the present pastor of Titia and her husband, and he did not wish to give cause for criticism. However, on second thought, he concluded to baptize the child, and to send the stipend to Titia's actual pastor. On another occasion, a girl who was brought up in a neighboring parish, where her parents still live, married a man from Cajus' parish and lives there at present with her husband. When she was about to be confined, she returned to her parents' home and was confined there, but had the child brought to Cajus to be baptized, as he was her parish priest at present, and she liked him better than the pastor of the town where she was confined. This child Cajus also baptized, because although born outside his parish, it belonged to his jurisdiction, since its parents had their actual domicile in his parish. Cajus' way of doing gave rise to considerable discussion among his brother priests, some of whom defended him, while others censured him. In his dilemma, Cajus desires to know:

1. Was he right in baptizing a child born within his parish, but whose parents have a fixed dwelling outside of the parish?

2. Was he right in baptizing a child born outside his parish, but whose parents are his parishioners?

To the first question we answer yes. Cajus did right in baptizing the child born in his parish, although its parents had their domicile in another parish, and had no quasi domicile in his parish. St. Alphonsus, l. 6, tr. 2, de Bap. n. 115, says: “If a woman happens to give birth in a village not her own, the child is to be baptized by the pastor of that village. Nevertheless, if that village is only a short distance from her own, for example, two or three hours, the child may also be baptized in her own church.”

According to St. Alphonsus, therefore, the child has the privilege of being baptized wherever it is born. If it is not born in the parish of its parents, and if that parish is not far distant, for example, ten or twelve miles, then the child may be taken home to the parish priest of its parents to be baptized, but it need not be. In that case, both priests are parish priests "in ordine ad Baptismum." It is very easy to understand the reasons why a child ought to be baptized where it is born. If it had to be taken home to the parish where its parents reside, it would have to be separated from its mother for a long time, and at a most critical moment of its existence, or else it would have to be deprived of the grace of Baptism until its mother is sufficiently recovered to accompany it, which would be several weeks at least, and sometimes longer, so that the child would be exposed to the danger of dying without Baptism. This latter, of course, is against the will and desire of the Church, which commands that the child be brought to Baptism as soon as possible after its birth. It is always not only the privilege, but also the duty, of the pastor of the place where the child is born to baptize it if the child is taken to him, and he retains the stipend offered for the baptism as his own. If the parish of the child's parents is not too far distant, that is, if the child is exposed to no risk by being taken back to its parents' parish to be baptized, then it may be taken there, but there is no obligation to do so. St. Alphonsus limits the distance that the child may be carried to be baptized by its parents' pastor to ten or twelve miles.

The holy doctor lived, of course, when there were no railroads or other modern means of transportation, and ten or twelve miles in a stage coach or on foot was the measure of fatigue that a child could endure, and the time spent in making the journey the limit of time that a new-born babe might safely be separated from its mother. With modern methods of transportation, and the progress made in the artificial nursing of children, a new-born child might be carried much farther to-day than in the days of St. Alphonsus, and yet run no risk. Still, modern theologians follow St. Alphonsus in determining the distance that a child may be carried in order to have it baptized by the parish priest of its parents.

Thus Genicot, II., n. 139: “If a woman gives birth in a village not her own, the child is to be baptized by the pastor of that village. Nevertheless, if that village is only a short distance from her own, for example, three leagues, the child may also be carried to her own church.”

Bucceroni, S.J., de Bapt. n. 422: “In which parish ought an infant to be baptized if the parents have neither domicile nor quasi-domicile, or are distant from it? If a woman happens to give birth in a village not her own, the child is to be baptized by the pastor of that village; nevertheless, if that village is only a short distance from her own, for example, two or three hours, the child may also be baptized in her own church.”

Lehmkuhl, II. n. 66 ad 3: “Indeed, if a woman gives birth in a place not her own, the infant is to be baptized by the pastor of the place where the mother gave birth and lies ill, unless perhaps it can equally well be carried to its proper pastor; indeed, if the home parish is not more than three leagues distant, it is always lawful to carry the infant to its proper pastor.”

Kenrick, de Bapt. n. 14, Aertnys, C.SS.R., de Bapt. n. 35, Konings, 1258, etc., all repeat almost verbatim the words of St. Alphonsus, who himself takes this opinion from the theologians who preceded him, v. g., Croix, n. 275, Salmant. de Bapt. c. 4. p. 4, n. 58.

Therefore, we conclude, that in the first instance Cajus did right in baptizing the child born in his parish, but whose parents lived in another parish.

Cajus did right also in the second instance, namely, baptizing a child whose parents lived in his parish, but which was born in a neighboring parish. This is evident from the answer just given to the first question. In this second case, if the child had been born in a parish far distant from Cajus' parish, and he had been consulted beforehand, he should have advised the parents to have the child baptized where it was born, as, under ordinary circumstances, that would have been better for the child from every point of view, and more according to good order and the fitness of things. If, however, the parents had not consulted him beforehand, but had returned home with the child and asked him to baptize it, he was perfectly within his rights in baptizing it.