Chapter III: On the Subject of Baptism

1465. The SUBJECT capable of Baptism is every and only living man descending from Adam, not yet baptized. This is established from the words of Christ the Lord, who says indiscriminately of all: "Unless anyone shall have been born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (John 3:5).

Hence, validly and licitly baptized are: 1. infants, as was expressly defined by Trent (sess. 7, can. 13, on Baptism); 2. the perpetually insane, who have never used reason; because they are judged of the same condition as infants.¹⁶ Recall what was said, n. 1435.

These things having been premised in general, we must now treat specifically: 1. of infants to be baptized in the womb of the mother; 2. of abortive fetuses and monsters; 3. of the children of unbelievers or heretics; 4. of adults; 5. of the doubtfully baptized.

1466. I. Outside danger of death, no infant is to be baptized unless he has been perfectly born. The reason is that to be born is prior to being reborn, and this is what Christ the Lord seems to suggest when He says: "unless anyone shall have been born again, etc."

We have said outside danger of death; for the Roman Ritual has these things: "But if the infant has put forth the head, and danger of death is imminent, let him be baptized on the head, nor afterwards, if he escapes alive, is he again to be baptized. But if he has put forth another member which indicates vital motion, let him, if danger is impending, be baptized on that; and then if when born he lives, he will be baptized under condition."

1467. II. "If a pregnant mother has died, the fetus is to be cautiously extracted as soon as possible, and if it is alive, it is to be baptized." Thus the Roman Ritual, and it is plainly established from the obligation of charity (cf. n. 483, Rule 2). Wherefore parents sin gravely who neglect that incision of the womb be done; and likewise surgeons or other experts, who omit or delay doing it; but also the pastor is held to take care that the mother not be buried, incision having been omitted.¹⁷

Today, however, in diverse regions the local Prefect must be admonished concerning the matter, and witnesses approved by him must be employed, both for recognizing the death and for greater certainty of the matter, and especially lest the author of the operation be brought forward as guilty of homicide.¹⁸

1468. Questions. Q. 1. Whether an infant in danger of death can be baptized enclosed in the womb of the mother?

Resp. 1. If he is altogether enclosed in the womb, so that water cannot reach him, he cannot be baptized: this is certain among all.

2. If, the mouth of the womb already having been opened, he can be reached by water through an instrument, the doctors dispute. Some indeed deny, because no one is said to be reborn unless he has first been born; but others very probably affirm, because such an infant is already a man as wayfarer, and can be said to have been born inchoatively, according to that (Matthew 1:20): "That which is born in her," that is, conceived, "is of the Holy Spirit." Therefore, in practice, he is to be baptized by the surgeon or midwife under condition: "If thou art capable, etc." (cf. n. 1456). But indeed: "A fetus baptized in the womb upon the crown is after birth to be rebaptized anew under condition." Thus the S. C. C., July 12, 1794, in Sutrina.¹⁹

Q. 2. Whether the mother can and is held to undergo a CAESAREAN SECTION, that the offspring may be baptized?

Resp. Affirmatively, if the following conditions concur together, namely: 1. if she herself cannot give birth naturally; 2. if the section, in the judgment of an expert surgeon, will not bring her into proximate danger of death, and from the powers both of the mother and of the fetus, and from the other circumstances, the safety of each can prudently be hoped for; for where the danger of death is judged only slight and remote, death, if it follows the incision, must be held to have happened per accidens; 3. if the offspring cannot otherwise be baptized. For in these circumstances there presses the obligation of suffering any temporal inconvenience whatever, for procuring the spiritual and eternal life of the infant.²⁰ But if only slight hope shines forth that the offspring can be saved, the mother can indeed, but is not held to, undergo the operation; because charity does not press in such uncertainty of the event (cf. n. 744).

For the rest, prudence will for the most part advise that the mother, who is in good faith, not be admonished concerning the grave obligation. She is only to be exhorted to consent to the section, lest perhaps, on account of denied consent, she die in a bad state, as Cangiamila rightly observes.²¹

Note. A girl dishonestly and secretly pregnant, and near death, if on account of advanced pregnancy it is probable that Baptism can be conferred on the fetus, is held to reveal her state outside confession, so that the operation may be done after she has died. Yet she must not be admonished if she is living in good faith and no fruit is at all hoped for from the admonition.

1469. I. An ABORTIVE fetus, however small, must be baptized; and indeed absolutely, if its animation and formation are established; but under condition, if there is doubt concerning its life or formation. Nor is Baptism to be omitted because the fetus is very recent; for, "today the opinion flourishes, not without applause received by experts," says St. Alphonsus, "that fetuses are informed by a soul from the beginning of conception, or at least after some days." And hence it is that, whenever some sign of life is found in them, and it is not established that they are destitute of a soul, they are to be baptized, with much caution indeed, lest they be killed, and with the condition added: If thou livest. "How many abortive fetuses," says Roncaglia,²² "through ignorance of midwives and mothers, the privy receives, whose soul, if it were not defrauded of Baptism, would see God eternally, and whose body, although it was unformed, would be more decently buried! But to whom especially under grave fault does it belong to expel ignorance? Is it not to pastors?"²³

Let the following things be noted: 1. The fetus is to be baptized which has at least the first outlines of a human body, which experts assert already happens on the third day, as Cangiamila reports.²⁴ Yet recognition of a fetus as such within the first weeks is difficult; but after a month easy, as Capellmann testifies.²⁵ 2. An incomplete fetus, or one not yet formed, is to be baptized by immersion in a basin or cup full of lukewarm water: absolutely indeed, if vital motion is apprehended in it; under condition, IF THOU LIVEST, when it appears without motion but is certainly distinguished from a mole; finally under the condition IF THOU ART CAPABLE, when it is doubtfully a human fetus. 3. A fetus or embryo which is enclosed in the membranes of the afterbirth,

and which softens and yields when touched by the finger, must be broken; but a mole appears as formless flesh, of bloody or varied color, hard to the touch.¹

1470. II. MONSTROUS births are to be baptized in a similar way. But these according to the following rules:

1. "A monster which does not show forth the human species must not be baptized: but if there is doubt concerning this, let it be baptized under this condition: If thou art a man..." Thus the ROMAN RITUAL. Hence, if the monster has a human head, it is to be baptized absolutely, whatever may be the case concerning the other members; indeed, even if it has a bestial head, it is to be baptized at least under condition, If thou art capable; because, as today's physicians testify, the bestial species is to be ascribed only to the woman's imagination, or to a defect of conformation.²

2. A monster concerning which there is doubt whether it is one person or several is not to be baptized until this is discerned. But it can be discerned: 1. if it has several heads and several distinct breasts; for then there are the same number of distinct men, and in that case each is to be baptized separately. But if danger of death is imminent, and time is not sufficient that each be baptized separately, the minister will be able, pouring water on the heads of each, to baptize all at once, saying: "I baptize you, etc." 2. If it has two heads and one breast, or two breasts and one head, or finally two heads and two breasts not well distinct, then first one must be baptized absolutely, and afterwards the other under condition, in this way: "If thou art not baptized, I baptize thee, etc." Thus the ROMAN RITUAL. If it has one head and two breasts, after the baptism of the head, each breast is to be baptized under condition: "If thou art not baptized"; because it is unknown by which breast the soul of the head is informed.

For the rest, in these cases, unless necessity presses, the matter is not to be done hastily; both so that the Ordinary of the place, or another expert, may be consulted, as the RITUAL admonishes, and so that with the lapse of time nature may explain itself.³

1471. Children are indeed VALIDLY baptized against the will of parents; for it is not written, says St. Augustine, unless anyone shall have been reborn from the will of parents, but unless anyone shall have been reborn of water, etc. But here it is asked whether always LICITLY? Concerning this, hold these things:

Principles. I. It is certain that with the Church there is the right of baptizing infant children of HERETICS or SCHISMATICS, and of preventing them from being imbued with the errors of their parents, nor can any doubt be raised concerning this right of the Church (cf. n. 132 sq.). But indeed, for the sake of prudence, "that a Catholic minister licitly furnish Baptism, it is necessary that he conceive a probable hope that such a baptized child can, in his own time, be instructed in the true faith. But if in no way he can have such a moral hope, he certainly ought rather to abstain from Baptism, supposing the little child not to be in extreme necessity, in which anyone else can be baptized." S. C. de PROP. FID., April 17, 1777.⁴

Note. The same Sacred Congregation, on November 29, 1672, declared: "It is licit for a pastor to baptize a child, with one Catholic parent consenting, even if he knows certainly that the other will afterwards take care that the infant be baptized by a heretical minister; but the Catholic spouse is held to admonish the heretical spouse that the son has already been legitimately baptized."⁵

1472. II. It is licit to baptize children of UNBELIEVERS, against the will of parents, in the following cases: 1. If they have the use of reason, or, in doubt, have completed seven years, and ask for Baptism, yet precaution having been taken against the danger of perversion. 2. If they are in danger of death and can be baptized secretly, without violence inflicted on parents, and without scandal of unbelievers.⁶ 3. If they have been placed outside the care of parents, and fear is absent lest they return to them, as if they were exposed or abandoned. 4. If they are perpetually insane. 5. If they have been captured by right of war; likewise, if their parents are slaves of Christians. 6. If one of the parents consents to Baptism, the other resisting. The same must be said if, the father being dead, the paternal grandfather consents to Baptism, although the mother resists.⁷

1473. III. Outside the aforesaid cases, it is NOT LICIT to baptize the children of unbelievers AGAINST the will of parents. The reason is that, if they are left in the power of the parents, the Sacrament would certainly be exposed to the danger of profanation on account of the undoubted danger of perversion and apostasy; if they are withdrawn from the parents, the natural right of parents would be injured, by which children, as long as they do not enjoy the use of reason, are under the power and care of parents, just as their other things are. Thus the more common opinion of the doctors against the Scotists, confirmed by the use of the Church and by the Constitution of Benedict XIV Postremo mense, February 28, 1747.⁸

IV. Offspring baptized, whether licitly or illicitly, against the will of parents, ARE TO BE WITHDRAWN from their power, that they may be INSTRUCTED in the faith received and persevere in it. The reason is that man through Baptism is subjected to the jurisdiction of the Church, and consequently is by right liberated from paternal care in those things which look to the government of the soul, insofar as it can be contrary to the acquired right of the Church; for the right of natural paternity ought to yield to the right of the spiritual paternity of the Church.⁹ Yet scarcely today can this doctrine be brought into practice, since civil laws obstruct it.

In ADULTS certain dispositions are required, both for the valid and for the licit reception of Baptism. Concerning this, hold these things:

1474. Principles. I. For the VALID reception of Baptism in adults there is REQUIRED and SUFFICES an intention at least habitual, that is, had and not retracted, of receiving Baptism (cf. n. 1434).

Hence it is inferred: 1. Baptism received from grave fear is valid. For since it is sufficiently voluntary, the Sacrament is received, although the thing or grace of the Sacrament is not received. 2. Likewise, Baptism conferred on one sleeping or insane is valid, if before, when in possession of himself, he asked for it, or in whom, as the Roman Ritual says, the desire of Baptism appeared.¹⁰

1475. II. For the LICIT and FRUITFUL reception of Baptism there are required in adults, besides intention, the DISPOSITIONS which the Council of Trent teaches are necessary for the justification of the impious (cf. n. 1644).

Hence you will deduce: 1. If some adult has already been justified beforehand through charity or contrition, nothing further is required in him except the will of receiving the Sacrament, by which character is impressed, the punishment of sin is remitted, and grace is increased (cf. n. 1450).

2. If he has not been justified, yet has only original sin, there is required and suffices in him explicit faith of the mysteries of faith which are to be believed by necessity of means, and implicit faith of the others which have been revealed by God; then hope of justification and eternal life, with the beginning of love, by which namely he begins to love God as the fountain of all justice, and proposes to himself to observe the divine commandments.

3. If he also has personal sins, there is moreover required supernatural sorrow for sins, according to that (Acts 2:38): "Do penance, and let each one of you be baptized"; and the reason is that actual sins cannot be destroyed without the retraction of the sinner. But the doctors more truly hand down that attrition suffices; for since Baptism has been instituted for destroying even actual sins committed before its reception, if it should pre-require contrition, which covers a multitude of sins, it would pre-require the effect for the producing of which it was instituted; therefore. Thus very commonly with St. Thomas, who says: "For this, that man prepare himself for grace to be perceived in Baptism, faith is pre-required, but not charity; because preceding attrition suffices, even if it is not contrition."¹¹

The ROMAN RITUAL admonishes: "1. If some adult is to be baptized, he ought first, according to the apostolic rule, to be diligently instructed in the Christian faith and holy morals, and for some days to be exercised in works of piety, and his will and purpose are to be explored more often, and he is to be baptized only knowing and willing, and well instructed."¹² In antiquity, diverse times had been prescribed for proving and instructing CATECHUMENS; now the whole matter is left to the judgment of the Bishop.¹³

2. For reverence of the Sacrament, it is fitting that both the one baptizing and those to be baptized who are healthy be fasting. Thus also the RITUAL.

1476. It is asked: Whether and when Baptism must be repeated UNDER CONDITION?

Resp. 1. There has always been in the Church the practice of baptizing, at least under a tacit condition, those concerning whom it was doubted whether by the laver of regeneration they had been expiated from original fault, as Benedict XIV proves at length against Natalis Alexander.¹⁴ But Alexander III established thus: "Concerning those of whom it is doubtful whether they have been baptized, let them be baptized with these words premised: If thou hast been baptized, I do not baptize thee; but, if thou hast not yet been baptized, I baptize thee, etc."¹⁵

2. "Baptism must be repeated under condition, not everywhere and without cause; but only then when a prudent and probable doubt underlies whether someone has been baptized, nor, diligent inquiry having first been made, could the truth of the matter become known," as the same Benedict XIV has.¹⁶ And this is to be observed under grave obligation, both in doubt of law, namely when it is established that baptism was conferred with doubtful matter, or form, or intention, or with one concerning whose value there is controversy; and in doubt of fact, when it is prudently doubted, whether positively or negatively, whether Baptism has been given or not: because in each doubt, the salvation of man is equally endangered. Hence the rule which the Fifth Council of Carthage hands down: "Whenever there are not found most certain witnesses who testify without doubt that they have been baptized, they are to be rebaptized without scruple."¹⁷

1477. From what has been said you will deduce:¹⁸ I. The following MUST be baptized under condition: 1. Exposed infants who are found without a certificate concerning Baptism. And the same must be thought with Benedict XIV, even if they carried on the neck testimony of Baptism, when the paper does not produce certainty, that is, when it is not discovered that the author of the paper is worthy of faith. Thus from the declaration of the S. C. C., December 18, 1723.¹⁹ 2. All those for whom no sign can be had of received Baptism, nor of the marriage of the parents. 3. Many heretics. But these are to be rebaptized, not because they have been baptized by heretics, but because heretics baptizing are not accustomed to fulfill the conditions which the Church prescribes. And St. Alphonsus asserts this by name concerning Lutherans and Calvinists, who, since they judge Baptism not to be absolutely necessary, care little for matter and form. "Some of them," he says, "use distilled waters; others are accustomed in baptizing to observe this custom, that one pronounces the form and another applies the matter; some pour water upon the garments only, and others more commonly fail in intention."²⁰

Note. 1. The Greek Schismatics, Eutychians, Nestorians, and other Oriental heretics are accustomed to confer Baptism accurately and VALIDLY; likewise the French Schismatics (petite Eglise), Old Catholics, and among Anglicans Ritualists. 2. Less accurately, and therefore DOUBTFULLY, Methodists and Presbyterians administer Baptism, who are accustomed to baptize by sprinkling; also Episcopalians, who especially today judge Baptism to be a bare rite without true efficacy; then finally Congregationalists, Unitarians, and Universalists, who consider Baptism as something free. 3. Baptists baptize adults only, and indeed doubtfully, because they pronounce the whole form before the immersion begins. Socinians and Quakers confer no baptism at all.²¹

Moreover, let it be noticed that Sects are changeable, and that today, in various places, they approach Rationalism more and more.

1478. II. The following are not to be baptized again, not even under condition: 1. Infants whose Baptism at least one witness worthy of faith affirms, as Benedict XIV himself teaches.²² And this, even if the witness is a woman, provided she is above exception, and there are not other witnesses deposing the contrary. 2. An adult who was born from truly Christian parents and was educated among the faithful; because, unless most evident reasons to the contrary are given, for his Baptism stands a violent presumption, which produces certitude. Yet if he is to be ordained, positive testimony of Baptism is required. 3. One baptized by a midwife, or by another skilled person, unless, the matter having been diligently examined, a probable suspicion of error is present.²³

1479. Let the following Responses of the HOLY OFFICE be noted: I. To the proposed doubt whether Baptism should be conferred under condition on heretics who are converted to the Catholic faith, from whatever place they come, and to whatever sect they belong, the Eminent Fathers responded Negatively; but in the conversion of heretics, from whatever place or from whatever sect they have come, inquiry must be made concerning the validity of Baptism received in heresy. Therefore, an examination having been made in individual cases, if it has been found either that none was conferred or that it was conferred invalidly, they will have to be baptized absolutely. But if, according to the account of times or places, the investigation having been completed, nothing is detected either for validity or for invalidity, or a probable doubt concerning the validity of Baptism still remains, then they are to be baptized secretly under condition. Finally, if it has been established that it was valid, they are to be received only to abjuration or profession of faith²⁴ (Decree, Wednesday, November 20, 1878).

II. It was asked: "1. Whether, in a case of doubt concerning the value of Baptism, Japanese persons who have thus received Baptism are still to be considered as Christians or unbelievers? 2. Whether, if doubt concerning the value of Baptism remains, and it has not seemed opportune to solve the doubt concerning those who have thus been doubtfully baptized, in matters which look to Matrimony, judgment must be made as if they had truly and validly been baptized, or not? To 1. Generally speaking, those concerning whom it is doubted whether they have been validly baptized are to be held as Christians. To 2. Baptism is to be judged valid in order to the validity of Matrimony" (Decree, September 9, 1868).¹