§ II. On the Proximate Matter of Baptism

238. • The proximate matter of Baptism is washing, which can be done in three ways, namely by immersion, sprinkling, and pouring, according to the practice of the different Churches, so that by the moral judgment of men the baptized person is judged to have been washed. This is clear from the words of the form, and from the perpetual practice of the Church, as well as from Paul, Eph. 5.26: Cleansing by the laver of water in the word of life.

239. Questions. - QUESTION 1. Whether a child can be validly baptized in the mother's womb?

Resp. The answer is affirmative, more probably, if the child in the womb is reached by water through some intervening instrument; because, since the infant already exists as a wayfarer man, he can be validly baptized. Nor is it an obstacle that the child is still wrapped in the secundina, because this is considered as a kind of part of the infant. Nevertheless, he must be baptized under condition, because it is not certainly established whether Baptism conferred in this way is valid. Therefore, if the child is born, he must again be baptized under condition. - St. Ligorius, n. 107. More recently, however, the skill of physicians has introduced another method by which a child not yet brought forth into the light can be baptized more certainly. Namely, an instrument has been invented by which the secundina is cut; and thus water, by another instrument being applied, can arrive so as immediately to touch the very body of the fetus ¹.

¹ Compare the things said in Vol. I, in the note to n. 401, where abortion is treated.

** Yet here the doubt must be satisfied which the VV. raise at this place (p. 929, in note): Since St. Alphonsus, they say, calls the validity of Baptism conferred on a child existing in the mother's womb only sufficiently probable, Father Ballerini certainly errs in the note to n. 401, tom. 1, when he says: According to those things which St. Alphonsus discusses in lib. 6, n. 107, after Benedict XIV, we can be altogether certain concerning the validity of Baptism thus conferred on infants enclosed in the womb.

Resp. This remained: that the VV. should give the reason for that word, ERRS. Indeed they would rightly have written so if in Father B.'s note it were said that the validity of Baptism thus conferred is handed down as certain both by St. Alphonsus and by Benedict XIV. But no such assertion is seen there; rather it is merely said that we can be certain according to those things which St. Alphonsus discusses after Benedict XIV. Now behold the easy and obvious reason for this affirmation. For, to prevent us from being able to be certain concerning the validity of this Baptism, two things especially stood in the way: one, that he who has not yet been born cannot be reborn; the other, that an infant in the womb cannot be washed, as St. Thomas objected. But the first difficulty St. Doctor Alphonsus has now solved so lucidly that he has utterly destroyed it. To this response it will be useful to have added this other reason (in Comitolius, lib. 1, q. 3, n. 1): If it is not a Sacrament, it is not one because birth from the womb is necessary; but that this is not necessary by essential necessity is clear from this: because a child enclosed in the womb of a dead mother is baptized after the mother has been cut open; which child cannot properly be called born. And an illustrious example stands forth in St. Raymond, to whom for this reason the surname NON-BORN was given. But as to the other difficulty, even if the matter could have seemed less certain to the St. Doctor, who merely intimates that the child can duly be washed in the womb, citing only the testimony of Benedict XIV after Comitolius, yet concerning that matter there can now be no further doubt. Hence, indeed, the argument which Comitolius (l.c.) also reports thus: Where nothing essential is lacking to Baptism, there it is necessary that there be true Baptism, since four essentials are considered in Baptism: matter, form, the minister with the intention of the Church, and the human supposit receiving the Sacrament. Here those four are found; therefore there can be no doubt concerning Baptism.

But, you will say, why did St. Alphonsus call this opinion merely sufficiently probable? Resp. Let it be permitted to conjecture that the St. Doctor thus moderated his judgment because what was being maintained concerning the necessary washing did not seem sufficiently certain to him. Hence (l.c.) he also has recourse to the doctrine of Sylvester and Vasquez, who say that an infant wrapped in the secundina is validly baptized; and he adds that this is judged probable by Laymann. And from these things it is clear how the state of the controversy, treated so clearly by St. Alphonsus, paved the way for us, so that what could seem to him only probable can now already be certainly established.

And from these things it is concluded that certainly in the state of the controversy as St. Alphonsus handles it, room is left for other questions concerning the dangers which would seem to have to be undergone by the mother, in order that the eternal salvation of the offspring may be provided for. But from this it cannot likewise be inferred that the same thing has place when the condition of the controversy has become different.

QUESTION 2. Whether Baptism is valid if the water touches only the clothes or the hair of the person to be baptized?

Resp. 1. If the water touches only the clothes, Baptism is certainly invalid, because thus no one would say that the man is washed; 2. however, it is more probably valid if the water touches the hair. But in practice the safer part must be followed. - St. Ligorius, n. 107, q. 3. - Hence, if the person to be baptized has hair, the Priest should either part his hair with the fingers of the left hand while he pours the water with the right, or baptize him on the forehead. - Scov.

QUESTION 3. Whether Baptism conferred on another part than on the head is valid?

Resp. The answer is affirmative, more probably, especially if Baptism is conferred on some more principal part, for example on the breast, shoulders, etc. Nevertheless, if necessity compelled this, afterwards, if it can be done, Baptism should be repeated under condition. - St. Ligorius, ibid., q. 4.

240. • QUESTION 4. Whether one or another drop of water suffices for baptizing?

Resp. The answer is negative, more probably, especially if the water does not flow, because that cannot be called washing, which is altogether required for Baptism. - Thus commonly. Nevertheless it seems to be doubtful matter, which in a case of necessity should be used. - St. Ligorius, n. 107, q. 6. - Elbel, n. 16. But they commonly say that the matter is then certain if the one baptizing, by movement of a moistened finger, washed a part of the body. - St. Ligorius, ibid.

QUESTION 5. Whether triple washing is required for Baptism?

Resp. 1. It is certainly not required for validity; for one washing suffices, so that someone is judged truly washed. - Thus all with St. Thomas, part 3, q. 66, art. 8.

Resp. 2. But it is required for liceity, and indeed under grave obligation, where this triple pouring of water is prescribed, as in the Roman Ritual. Yet these things seem to be understood of solemn Baptism.