CHAPTER IV: ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM

The subject of Baptism is every and only wayfaring man not yet baptized.

1260. Resolves. - 1° Infants are validly baptized, likewise the perpetually insane who have never used reason, and therefore are judged to be of the same condition as infants. But if they have ever used reason, Baptism more probably is not valid unless before the insanity they sought it. In practice, however, such persons should be baptized under condition, both because it is not plainly established that they did not seek Baptism, and also because according to several authors it is enough if someone had the will of receiving all things necessary for salvation. (Cf. nn. 1238, 1240.)

2° If there is doubt whether an infant lives, he is to be baptized under condition. But since today the opinion that the fetus is informed by a soul from the beginning of conception is common (n. 474), an abortive fetus, however small, if it has human form and gives a sign of life, is to be baptized absolutely. But if indications of humanity and life scarcely appear in it, it is to be baptized under the condition: if thou art a man. The same must be said concerning an unformed production - unless it already displays manifest signs of putrefaction, decomposition, or disorganization - and provided there appear the outlines proper to a human fetus, by which it is distinguished from a mole and other fruitless generations.¹ But if the fetus is still wrapped in the afterbirth, it is not to be baptized at least on the exterior membrane of this, since to experts today no doubt remains that it is part of the mother, not of the fetus.² Therefore in that case the afterbirth is to be cut open before Baptism is conferred.

3° Concerning monsters, note these things from the Roman Ritual: "In baptizing monsters ... great caution is to be employed: concerning this, if there is need, the Ordinary of the place, or other experts, are to be consulted, unless danger of death is imminent."

"A monster which does not bear before itself the human species ought not to be baptized; but if there is doubt concerning it, let it be baptized under this condition: If thou art a man, I baptize thee, etc." But it will have to be said to bear before itself the human species whenever it has a head, however deformed that may be. Thus experts today.³

"But that concerning which there is doubt whether there is one person or several persons is not to be baptized until this is discerned; but it can be discerned if it has one or several heads, one or several breasts; for then there will be as many distinct men, and ... each one separately is to be baptized." If there is danger in delay, let him wash each one with the form in the plural. "But when it is not certain that in the monster there are two persons, because it does not have two distinct heads and two distinct breasts, then one must first be baptized absolutely, and afterward the other under condition, in this way: If thou art not baptized," etc.

4° He is validly baptized whom the Minister thinks to be someone else; indeed even if it is a female whom he thinks to be male, because he intends to baptize the one present, and not another (n. 1218).

5° Several are validly baptized at the same time with this form: I baptize you, provided they are washed at the same time. But outside the case of necessity this is illicit.

6° Adults, although rude, who nevertheless are not altogether incapable, cannot be baptized unless according to their capacity they have been instructed at least in the things necessary by necessity of means, as are the principal mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation. This also holds for dying persons of this sort, who therefore will have to be baptized without condition if the one baptizing prudently judges that the sick person sufficiently knows the aforesaid mysteries according to his capacity, truly gives faith to them, and sincerely promises that he will satisfy the duties of a Christian man; otherwise they either ought not to be baptized, if the contrary is morally certainly established, or under condition, if these necessary dispositions are doubtful, Baptism cannot be deferred, and otherwise nothing stands in the way of the conferral of this Sacrament. - Nor is it lawful to leave an adult baptized or to be baptized in good faith as regards the precepts of positive law (not even as regards those things which perhaps he will obey with difficulty), but all the precepts of positive law ought to be intimated to him. - Thus from very many decisions of the Congregation of the Holy Office, especially to questions of Missionaries.⁴

1261. Questions. - Query 1° Can the children of non-Catholics licitly be baptized against the will of their parents?

Resp. Distinguish. For they either certainly have the use of reason, or doubtfully have it, or certainly do not have it.

If the first, asking and sufficiently instructed, the danger of perversion having been guarded against, they both can be baptized, and, every fear of evil having been set aside, ought to be baptized. - They can; for one certainly having the use of reason (which each one is regularly judged to have when the seventh year has been completed)¹ "already, as regards those things which are of divine or natural right, begins to be of his own power."² - Every fear of evil having been set aside, they OUGHT. For they have a strict right to the aids of salvation, which the Ministers of the Church are held from divine mandate to furnish; wherefore "it is not lawful to reject them, if they earnestly ask, from fear of the offense of parents, or of public hatred, or of another inconvenience.... Prudence indeed is necessary," - and hence "the consent of the parents is to be sought by the children themselves," if they are still minors, but not by the priest, and, insofar as can be done, all things are to be done with their peace - but not that "prudence which places the advantages of this world before the salvation of souls."³

If the second, St. Alphonsus⁴ with Benedict XIV and Lugo holds that before the seventh year Baptism is to be deferred until it is established concerning the perfect use of reason. The Instruction of the S. C. de P. F. to the Prefect of the Missions of Tripoli is consonant.⁵

If the third, subdistinguish. - It will be lawful in the cases in which the danger of perversion ceases, namely, if either the parents are slaves of some Catholic; or the offspring has been placed outside the care of the parents (for example, if exposed and taken up by Catholics), without fear that it will return to them; or it is perpetually insane; or it is placed in the article, or morally certain danger, of death. Except, nevertheless, if, although it is placed in the article of death, scandal is to be feared, because, for example, some greater hatred against the Catholic Religion and savagery against Catholics would be stirred up.⁶ For the common good is to be preferred to a private good.

Outside these cases it will not be lawful, whether there is question of the children of unbelievers, or among us of heretical parents. For there stand in the way, even as regards the children of heretics among us, the danger of perversion and the reason of scandal, or of graver evils. - I said: even as regards the children of heretics among us. For although the right of baptizing infant children of heretics belongs to the Church, and of preventing them from being imbued with the errors of their parents, nevertheless this right of hers cannot be executed among us. Hence absolutely no deference is to be shown to nurses, if they bring infants to the church to be baptized, while the heretical parents suspect nothing.⁷

1262. - Query 2° Whether and when can infants of consenting non-Catholics licitly be baptized?

Resp. Affirmatively, if there shines forth a probable hope of their Catholic education, care nevertheless having been taken that a sponsor, male or female, and these Catholic, be had.¹ The reason is, because then the danger both of perversion and of scandal is absent.

But practically that hope is to be said to shine forth:

a) If the parents are persuaded that the Catholic Faith is true, and have the intention of embracing it, or at least seem somewhat disposed toward embracing it.

b) If they permit to a Catholic godfather or godmother the instruction of the child in matters of Faith, and promise that they will place no obstacle to the children professing the Faith.

c) The same seems to be said if one or the other parent is so disposed.

d) "As often as one or the other parent professes the Faith, although the other pursues it with more than Vatinian hatred, the infant can be baptized, with the Catholic parent being admonished to put forth every effort in its Catholic instruction. But if he grows so sluggish that he cares nothing about this, or if he has already bound himself to the spouse to permit to him the education of the child in heresy, it will not be lawful to baptize the infant with that condition, with manifest and certain danger of apostasy. For the most part, indeed, it is to be hoped that the Catholic spouse will sometime be recalled to a sense of Religion, and will be solicitous concerning the right instruction of the children, unless he plainly fosters the contrary purpose."² These things are similar to those which were decreed concerning Christian women of Turks asking that their children be baptized.³ (3) p. 417.

"But if the parents, as sometimes happens, ask for priestly ministry from a cause of opportunity alone, or because they believe Baptism to be necessary, while they reject most of the other dogmas of the Faith, and wish to educate the children in heresy, or to keep them until mature age without any document of religion, so that they may judge more freely and more maturely concerning matters of Faith, and choose a sect at will, we do not think it lawful to baptize the infants, since the Sacrament is profaned by heretical instruction, or by infidelity, which is so likely to follow. The S. C. Ing. in the month of September 1827, having weighed those things which seemed to import a moderation of the decrees concerning this matter in the diocese of Bardstown, judged that there was no departure to be made from the decrees."⁴

1263. - Query 3° Can or ought Baptism ever be repeated?

Resp. It can and ought to be repeated under condition, whenever concerning its value there is some doubt not to be despised; otherwise it cannot be repeated without grave sin, because an attempt of ministering a Sacrament to an incapable subject is sacrilege. (Cf. n. 1213). But a doubt is to be despised if either 1° one witness (although a woman, concerning whom nevertheless no suspicion occurs) testifies concerning his own fact especially;¹ or 2° there is question of adults who were born of Catholic parents and educated among the faithful, although testimony is not had of Baptism received, provided grave reasons on the contrary side do not occur.²

Query 4° Are exposed infants to be baptized?

Resp. Affirmatively, if they have been exposed without testimony of Baptism conferred, unless from elsewhere it is established that they have been duly baptized. But if they have been exposed with a little note attesting that they have been baptized, it is controverted. The more common and truer sentence, which a decision of the S. C. C.¹ confirms, teaches that all these are to be baptized under condition, unless such a little note is of such a kind that it begets certitude, for example, because it was signed by a known priest.²

Query 5° Are infants to be rebaptized who have been baptized either by midwives or by lay persons?

Resp. Negatively, unless there is present a probable suspicion of error in the Baptism conferred. - Thus the most common and true sentence, says St. Alphonsus,³ who recalls a decision of the S. Congregation.

1264. - Query 6° What things are to be observed in the reception of Neo-converts?

Resp. Concerning these see the Roman Ritual, Ratisbon edition 1882, Supplement for the American Provinces of the United States, p. 1.

Nevertheless note the following:

It is said in the Instruction of the Holy Office, whose tenor is reported in the cited place:

I. Baptism, if it is repeated under condition, is to be repeated according to the order of the Baptism of adults. But the Fathers of the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore¹ petitioned that the faculty of using in the Baptism of adults the shorter formula established for little children, which until the year 1870 had been conceded for certain dioceses (not, however, prescribed), the Supreme Pontiff would deign to extend to all for ten or twenty years. Moreover the Sacred Congregation judged that Bishops ought to recur when the time of the last concession had been completed.² Therefore let each one see whether that shorter formula has been conceded in his diocese. But it is usually conceded, with the Bishop admonished that he take care to introduce gradually the formula prescribed for adults, and to guard lest the shorter one pass into custom. - But to the postulate of the Fathers that it be conceded to them what was conceded to the English, namely to baptize under condition privately, with lustral water only, and without ceremonies, adults converted from heresy, the Sacred Congregation responded: for the present it is not expedient.³ (4) p. 417.

II. If a Neo-convert, whose Baptism has been judged valid, greatly desires that the rites formerly omitted in his Baptism be supplied, the priest is indeed free to comply with this pious wish of his. Yet in such a case he will have to employ the order of the Baptism of adults, and to change the things to be changed on account of Baptism already validly received. Thus the aforesaid Instruction.⁴

III. "In the conversion of heretics" (supposing that the fact of Baptism conferred is established) "one must first inquire concerning the validity of the Baptism received in heresy." Today indeed, universally, one can prudently doubt concerning it; for "heretics" for the most part, "since they think rather incorrectly concerning Baptism, and hold it in the place of a mere ceremony which helps nothing toward obtaining the salvation of the soul, are most often accustomed to neglect certain rites which are of the greatest moment, and without which the nature of the Sacrament by no means subsists."¹ I said: universally; for the reason given only founds a presumption; but presumption ought to yield to truth; therefore by force of the same it will not be lawful to act unless diligence for discovering the truth has been employed in vain. Therefore the S. C. of the Holy Office rightly declared that "one must first inquire" concerning "the validity of Baptism received in heresy," and indeed "with a diligent examination having been instituted." But of this examination:

A) The objects are: the very fact of Baptism conferred or not conferred; then, if the fact is established, the mode and time in which, the sect in which, and the place where someone was baptized.

I said: a) the very fact of Baptism conferred or not conferred; for 1) Socinians and Quakers are not baptized; 2) Baptists, not before adult age; 3) Congregationalists, Unitarians, and Universalists judge Baptism free; 4) many other non-Catholic parents do not take care concerning Baptism to be conferred on their offspring, or procure it for only one or another of their infants, whence it happens that, the parents being dead, there is often no one who can testify concerning the fact of Baptism conferred, especially among us.

I said: b) the mode and sect. Thus Baptism "sometimes becomes doubtful from a slight reason, because ministers of the sects, especially Presbyterians and Methodists, sprinkle those to be baptized, and very often several at the same time, with a sprinkler; but" probably "the skin ought to be touched by the water and to flow."²

"Since the custom of the Baptists leaves no room of doubting concerning the abundance of water, and they pronounce the due form, certain words being premised, which do not vitiate it: that I may obey the Lord Jesus Christ or that I may obey thy command, the sole reason of doubting concerning the value of Baptism conferred by them would be taken from the separation of the ablution from the form; for this is pronounced entire before the immersion; or from defect of intention, namely because they believe Baptism to be the same as that by which John washed Christ. Therefore for converts from that sect, who all received Baptism in adult age and therefore can give certain testimony concerning it received, it does not seem that Baptism is to be repeated, not even with a condition added. Moreover an entirely close conjunction" (or one which the delay of one Pater does not interrupt) "ought to exist between form and matter, on which account we leave the matter to the judgment of the wiser." Thus Kenrick.³ Practically, Baptism will for the most part have to be repeated under condition, at least as it seems to me.

Among Anglicans (Episcopalians), the Baptism of Ritualists is presumed to have been duly conferred; most of the other Anglicans, and generally heretics, even today attribute no force to the rite.

Congregationalists, Unitarians, Universalists, as I said above, universally judge Baptism free.

Therefore the Baptism of all these is rightly presumed doubtful.

On the contrary, Baptism conferred by the Greek schismatics, by Eutychians, Nestorians, and other Eastern heretics, and also in the Gallican Sect which is called La petite Eglise, is to be held as certainly valid.

I said: c) time. Namely, at the beginning of this century, Rationalism not yet ruling among Protestants, Baptism was for the most part administered with greater care than today.

I said: d) place. Formerly especially, there were certain regions in Northern Europe which the same Rationalism had not yet invaded, while others already were plainly infected with it.

B) The manner of examination. Those are to be interrogated concerning the aforesaid things, and notably concerning the mode, both the one whose Baptism is doubted, who will be able to bear almost undoubted testimony if he was baptized in adult age, and others, if they can easily be had, who perhaps were present at his Baptism, or know in what way the rite was customarily performed in the region in which and at the time when he was baptized. "Nor is it generally to be demanded from converts that they receive Baptism again, if they themselves, well conscious of the morals of the sect to which they adhered, are persuaded that they were duly baptized." Thus Kenrick,⁴ whose sentence nevertheless is not altogether approved by others.

Once the examination has been completed in the way in which it can be done, today there will for the most part remain doubt about Baptism conferred by heretics. Wherefore it is universally repeated under condition, not only among us, but also in England, France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, and, Perrone testifying, even Rome.⁵

IV. "A threefold method of proceeding is distinguished in reconciling heretics:

"1) If Baptism is conferred absolutely, no Abjuration follows, nor Absolution, because the Sacrament of Regeneration washes away all things." - "Wherefore," says Kenrick,¹ "the custom of exacting it," i.e. Confession, "so that the soul may be disposed to the grace of Baptism, is altogether to be disapproved, as Cardinal Consalvi, Pro-Prefect of the S. Congregation de Propaganda Fide, responded to me when I consulted him, on 31 May in the year 1823, ... lest a graver burden be imposed on those wishing to approach Baptism, by which they may be frightened away; or the error creep in, that their sins must necessarily be declared; or they themselves, hindered by shame, conceal some things contrary to the dictate of conscience, and thus approach not rightly disposed. To those wishing to confess, it can be indulged, according to St. Thomas:² 'If, however, some to be baptized from their devotion should wish to confess their sins, their Confession would have to be heard, not for this, that satisfaction should be imposed on them, but for this, that spiritual information of life should be handed down to them against accustomed sins.'"

In which case they are to be instructed concerning this end of their Confession and concerning its non-obligation, lest they sin against conscience while they conceal certain things.

"2) If Baptism is to be repeated under condition, one must proceed in this order:

"A) Abjuration, or Profession of Faith.

"B) Conditionated Baptism.

"C) Sacramental Confession with conditionated Absolution.

"3) But when Baptism has been judged valid, only Abjuration, or Profession of Faith, is received, which Absolution from censures follows."

Concerning abjuration note: a) according to Kenrick,³ that it is done by the Piana Profession of Faith; but today that is to be used which the Roman Ritual exhibits, Ratisbon edition 1882, Suppl. p. 2. b) From Scavini, that it is to be done also by a material heretic. c) Perhaps by epikeia that formula can be omitted when there is question of persons of color, or other rude persons, to be received, who are able neither to recite nor to understand it. Also the priest can read it beforehand to women (or others) of more timid disposition, who will signify their assent at the end. Moreover the journal Pastoral-Blatt fuer Nord-America admonishes⁴ that two suitable witnesses are to be employed for the Profession of Faith, and this even then when for just causes it seems it must be received secretly, for example, in the sacristy.

Absolution from censures is to be given both to those for whom Baptism is repeated under condition, and to those for whom it is not repeated; but "in grave or light doubt whether the penitent incurred excommunication through heresy perhaps professed only materially, the priest here" (i.e. after the words "of excommunication, which") "should insert the word: perhaps."⁵

V. There is scarcely need to say that he is not to be admitted to Baptism who doubts concerning some doctrine of Faith, and that a man cannot be baptized who indeed acknowledges Baptism to be necessary, but rejects other dogmas. The same holds concerning him who in mind is not prepared to keep the mandates of God and the Church.⁶ Therefore it is altogether clear that the practice of some is to be disapproved, who formerly, lest they be compelled to obtain a dispensation in the impediment of disparity of cult, or I know not from what other cause, conferred Baptism upon an unbeliever about to enter Matrimony with a Catholic, not taking care concerning the Faith and concerning his will of living as a Christian. All these things are to be understood concerning ordinary cases; for:

VI. If there is question of a dying non-Catholic, who manifests a desire of embracing the Catholic Faith either by himself or, when he is no longer able to do this, through others, or formerly manifested it, the examination concerning the value of Baptism received in heresy ordinarily will not be able to be instituted on account of the circumstances, and the Sacrament under condition (or, if it is established that he was never baptized, absolutely), by a threefold or even one pouring of water, with all things to be done before Baptism omitted, is to be conferred by a priest vested in a white stole. Afterward, if time is available and he has Chrism with him, let him anoint him on the crown of the head, and impose the white linen cloth, and hand to him the lighted candle, as is handed down in the Order of baptizing.⁷ Baptism having been conferred under condition, the Confession of the dying person, in the manner in which it can be done, is received; but in every case absolution is given (under condition) from censures and sins. Then, if time permits and there is question of a dying person master of himself and sufficiently instructed, Viaticum will be ministered.⁸ Finally Extreme Unction is conferred, since an interpretative intention suffices for receiving it.⁹ But if the dying person is still master of his mind, the priest will take care that he express before witnesses his will of embracing the Catholic Faith and of dying in it, lest otherwise a place be given to inconveniences.