Chapter IV. On the Subject of Baptism

The subject of Baptism is every and only wayfarer human being not yet baptized.

247. Resolves. - 1. Infants are validly baptized, likewise those perpetually insane who have never used reason, and consequently are considered of the same condition as infants. But if they have at some time used reason, Baptism more probably is not valid unless before their insanity they had asked for it. Yet in practice these would have to be baptized under condition, both because it is not altogether established that they did not ask for Baptism, and also because according to many it is enough if someone had the will of receiving all things necessary for salvation. - On the Sacraments in general, n. 228.

2. If there is doubt whether an infant is alive, he is to be baptized under condition. Hence Theologians rightly judge generally that all abortive fetuses are always to be baptized under condition, if they are alive; especially since today the opinion flourishes, commonly received by experts, that the fetus is informed by the soul from the beginning of conception, or at least not long after ¹.

¹ This opinion, midway between two opinions, one of which sets animation immediately from conception, the other at forty or even eighty days, seems to be the opinion of those who never knew or understood the reasons of either opposite opinion, and who therefore also cannot assign the reasons which impelled them to tread that middle way.

** St. Alphonsus writes (lib. 6, n. 124): Cardenas, Roncaglia, Mazzotta, and Croix, with other very grave Authors, judge very well that all abortive fetuses, if by some movement they give a sign of life, and it is not established that they are destitute of a soul, are always to be baptized under the condition if they are alive; especially since today there flourishes the opinion, received not without applause by experts, that fetuses are informed by the soul from the beginning of conception, or at least after some days. And in these words the St. Doctor seems to intimate that these fetuses are to be baptized both if they give a sign of life and even if they do not give a sign of life, provided at least that it is not established that they are destitute of a soul, that is, dead. And the reason is that it is established by experience that sometimes a sign of life does not appear unless microscopic instruments are applied.

But perhaps what the St. Doctor adds in the same place will be less pleasing to someone: Besides, Tournely rightly observes (that is, Collet), tom. 4, p. 363 (namely, On Baptism, chap. 7, art. 1, sect. 2, concl. 2), that a fleshy mass which has no disposition of organs ought not to be baptized, since it is everywhere received that the soul is not infused into the body before that body has been formed; and then, in order that it be baptized, it is required that it indicate some vital movement, as the Roman Ritual prescribes concerning the Baptism of little children. What Collet meant seems somewhat obscure. For he adds these things as though as an inference from those things which he had said about baptizing monsters. But it is not obscure that those things do not cohere with those things which St. Alphonsus had set forth beforehand. For the opinion concerning the soul of the fetus, whether from the beginning of conception or after some days, in no way coheres with the antiquated opinion concerning the animation of the fetus, which follows after the disposition of the organs, so that the body has been formed.

That a fleshy mass ought not to be baptized, Collet endeavors to prove thus: The Ritual of Paul V, to which in this matter more credence is to be given than to certain physicians fighting against the rest, whether physicians or philosophers, forbids that a fetus be baptized before signs of vital motion. But: 1. It is not to be thought that in the Ritual it is established that the animation of the fetus is to be determined according to time from Peripatetic opinions; 2. The sign of life of which the Ritual speaks seems to St. Alphonsus to be taken in this way: that it is not established that the fetus is already lifeless. Besides, Collet may have written those things in whatever way according to the more received opinions of his age; but in our age, since those opinions have become obsolete, surely neither right reason permits, nor does the practice of the Church allow, that ancient prejudices of that sort prescribe for us the manner of acting in that most grave business, in which the eternal salvation of souls is at stake.

3. He is validly baptized whom the Minister thinks to be another; indeed even if it is a female whom he thinks to be a male; because he intends to baptize the one present and not another.

4. Several are validly baptized at the same time with this form, I baptize you, provided that they are washed at the same time. But outside a case of necessity this is illicit.

248. Questions. - QUESTION 1. Whether the children of infidels can licitly be baptized?

Resp. 1. The answer is affirmative in the following cases, namely: 1. if they have the use of reason and consent, even if the parents oppose; 2. if the parents have fallen away from the Faith, as heretics are; because the Church has the right to coerce parents; 3. if the children are soon to die, because necessity presses, and no danger at all is to be feared; 4. if one of the parents consents, while the other resists. - St. Ligorius, n. 127.

Resp. 2. The answer is negative in other cases, for example if both parents resist, and the children are going to remain in the power of the parents; the reason is the danger of perversion. This is clear from the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, 1703. And for Hebrews in particular it is clear from the Constitution of Julius III. - St. Ligorius, n. 132.

QUESTION 2. Whether Baptism can or must ever be repeated?

Resp. It can and must be repeated under condition, whenever there is some not contemptible doubt concerning its value; otherwise it cannot be repeated without grave sin, because the attempt to administer a Sacrament to an incapable subject is sacrilege. - Recall the things said above, n. 200.

249. • QUESTION 3. Whether exposed infants are to be baptized?

Resp. The answer is affirmative if those exposed infants have been exposed without testimony of Baptism having been conferred, unless from elsewhere it is established that they were duly baptized. But if they have been exposed with a note attesting that they have been baptized, it is controverted. The more common and truer opinion teaches that all these are to be baptized under condition. - St. Ligorius, n. 135.

QUESTION 4. Whether infants baptized either by midwives or by lay persons are to be rebaptized?

Resp. No, unless there is a probable suspicion of error in the Baptism conferred. Thus the very common and true opinion, says St. Ligorius, n. 156, where he commemorates the decision of the Sacred Congregation.

QUESTION 5. Whether those baptized by heretics must be rebaptized?

Resp. It is certain, of Faith, from Trent, that Baptism conferred by heretics is valid when all things required for the Sacrament are used. But Theologians commonly and deservedly think that all children baptized by Protestant ministers are to be rebaptized under condition, because there must be doubt about the matter, form, and intention of such ministers, who do not judge this Sacrament to be absolutely necessary. - St. Ligorius, n. 137 ².

² To the doctrine on the subject of Baptism belong those things which St. Alphonsus hands down concerning monsters (lib. 6, n. 125): When, he says, it is doubted whether a monster is a man, it is to be baptized absolutely if the head is human, although the members are beast-like; but under condition if the head is beast-like and the members human; this, indeed, if it proceeded from intercourse of a man with a woman. For if it proceeded from a man with a beast (which I think incredible), then it should always be baptized under condition; otherwise, if from a woman and a brute; for then it should in no way be baptized, because it would not descend from Adam, since it was not conceived from virile seed. To these things observe that the last consequence would be legitimate if it is established that a fetus of this sort cannot be a participant in human nature. But if you suppose otherwise, the consequence is not valid; for from the fact that he could not be called a son of Adam, it would follow only that he does not have original sin, according to those things which St. Thomas also has, 1.2, q. 81, art. 4, and 2, dist. 31, q. 1, art. 2, ad 3, but not that he does not need sanctification, which can be from grace alone. St. Alphonsus continues: But if it has duplicated members of a man, and it is doubted whether it is one man or two, a double Baptism is to be conferred, one absolutely, the other under condition on that part in which the members appear more imperfect... Then he refers to the Roman Ritual, in which these things are had: But in baptizing monsters, if the case happens, great caution must be used; concerning this, if there is need, the Ordinary of the place or other experts are to be consulted, unless danger of death threatens. A monster which does not present the human species must not be baptized; but if there is doubt about this, let it be baptized under this condition: If thou art a man, I baptize thee, etc. But that concerning which there is doubt whether it is one person or several is not to be baptized until this is discerned; and it can be discerned if it has one or several heads, one or several breasts; for then there will be as many hearts and souls, and distinct men; and in that case each is to be baptized separately, by saying to each: I baptize thee, etc. But if danger of death threatens, and time does not suffice that each be baptized separately, the minister, pouring water on the heads of each, will be able to baptize all together by saying: I baptize you in the name, etc. But when it is not certain that there are two persons in the monster, as because it does not have two heads and two breasts well distinct, then first one must be baptized absolutely, and afterwards the other in this way: If thou art not baptized, I baptize thee, etc.