Question One: Concerning the Matter of Baptism — Theological Principles

I. Three things are required for the validity of Baptism: 1) the intention of the minister, at least virtual, of doing what the Church does; 2) valid matter and form posited together; 3) a capable subject, for which in an adult there is required the intention, at least habitual, of receiving the sacrament. But if one of these is doubtfully present or has been present, Baptism, just as in a case of necessity it is to be conferred, so also is to be renewed: conditionally.

Concerning these, no special difficulty occurs, in relation to the present questions about embryology, except nevertheless for the matter of the sacrament, about which, therefore, we shall speak especially. But so that the exposition may be more complete and more perfect from every part, and the whole synthesis of theological doctrine may be seen, and at the same time the solution of cases may be manifest in all things, we also add the principles to be held concerning the form of the sacrament.

II. The remote matter required for validity is natural or elementary water in a liquid state, as is established from Jn. III, 5, and Acts of the Apostles VIII, 36; from the rituals; from the Fourth Lateran, Florence, and Trent defining it, sess. 7, can. 2; i.e., everything which comes under the use and name of water among men. Such is water of rivers, rain, a well, a spring, ponds, cisterns, a bath, marshes, lakes, the sea, whether bitter or poisoned or sweet, whether warm and boiling or cold and icy, whether blessed or not. Likewise water dissolved from snow, ice, hail, dew, mists, condensed vapors, or flowing from stones (sweat of pavement), leaves, or walls in rainy or winter time; likewise water obtained by chemical art or by distillation of another element, if it is pure from foreign elements; likewise water mixed with foreign matter in a small quantity, provided that not only chemically but also according to common estimation water is certainly predominant and it is still called water, e.g., turbid or somewhat muddy water, mineral, sulphurous, ferruginous water, etc.

Hence:

1. invalid matter is: wine, oil, broth of flesh or fat, fluids of an animal or human body: milk, blood, urine, saliva, tears, sweat, mucus, amniotic fluid, spittle, phlegms, etc.; sap pressed from trees, fruits (apples, pears, cherries), flowers, herbs, roots, grains; snow, ice, hail, hoarfrost, vapor, and other things not dissolved because they are not suitable for ablution; water very much mixed, so that it has more of a foreign substance than of water, or is no longer suitable for ablution, e.g., mud, ink, very good beer, good coffee, good tea, good broth, lye. For all these things are not water; or if they are, according to common estimation they do not have the use or name of water.

2. doubtful matter is thin broth, lye not too thick, small beer, ordinary tea-water or coffee-water, slight ink, water dissolved from salt, artificial water extracted by distillation from flowers or herbs, e.g., rose-water, violet-water, etc., or flowing from a vine or trees.

III. The proximate valid matter is the ablution of the one to be baptized by the one baptizing; otherwise the sense of the form would not be verified, and besides this is held by universal tradition. It is said:

1. Ablution, for which it is required that water immediately and physically touch the body and successively flow and run over some part of it, so that it is judged washed or cleansed. For this, however, a small quantity suffices; nor is it necessary that bodily filth be wiped away: for the ablution of Baptism is ordered to spiritual cleansing alone. It can be done either a) by movement of the one to be baptized in the water, or b) by movement of the water upon the one to be baptized; namely:

a) by immersion, for which it is required that someone be moved in or under the water; whence Baptism would be invalid if someone were held unmoved in unmoved water; and probably, according to certain authors, also that he be drawn out from the water. Hence an ablution which kills, by which someone would throw an infant into a river, is doubtfully valid; besides, it is gravely illicit because evils are not to be done that goods may come about. But the very throwing is already evil of itself, as tending directly only to killing, nor does it immediately have a good effect, as ablution, but only mediately and by accident, because in fact it is terminated rather to water and ablution than to something else. Namely, the ablution in the case is an effect of the throwing, which, even if it were not done into water, would nevertheless cause death.¹ Nevertheless, it is licit to wash with icy water, if no other is available, even if death were feared as about to be hastened somewhat, because this action of itself and immediately tends to ablution and sanctification, not to killing; whence death would happen by accident and would be compensated by the more excellent good of eternal life;

¹ Cf. Billuart, de Bapt., art. 3, § III.

b) also by infusion and by sprinkling, although this last mode is dangerous in practice; for these some movement of water is required. Whence invalid matter is the mere touch of water without flow, a drop or wet cloth remaining on the forehead; ablution performed by one or another drop, or in the manner of an anointing, is easily doubtful (S. Off., 14 Dec. 1898); it is valid if someone by movement of a finger or moistened cloth would wash a part of the body.

2. Ablution of the one to be baptized, i.e., a) of the whole body or of a principal part, namely the head, "in which all the interior and exterior senses flourish" (S. Th., III, q. 66, a. 7, ad 3). Baptism is valid if it is done upon the head covered with an ulcerous crust, because the crust is nothing but the skin of the infant foully disfigured by disease, and otherwise a man whose whole head were covered with smallpox could neither be washed nor baptized. Baptism is doubtful if the ablution is done on other members than the head, because in none is the integrity of life as in the head; and it is the more doubtful the more it is done on a member less notable and more remote from the head; whence it is more probably valid if it is done on the heart, breast, neck, shoulder-blades, shoulders; more doubtful on the arms or legs; very doubtful on the foot, hand, finger;

b) of the body itself, which must be physically and immediately touched. Hence there is doubt concerning the value of Baptism conferred on hairs, even of the head, because they are not certainly parts of the body;² it is more doubtful if on beard or nails; very doubtful if on the umbilical cord or on one of the two membranes which immediately envelop the infant in the mother's uterus and which are born from the ovum, for although they are of fetal origin, nevertheless they are not a permanent part of the infant but rather a covering or transitory instrument; almost certainly invalid if on the third, exterior membrane enveloping the fetus, because this arises from the substance of the mother; invalid if it is done on the clothing or body of the mother (S. Off., 21 May 1671).

² But if the head is covered with hair, the priest must, while with the right hand he pours water upon the crown of the head, with the left separate the hairs, or take care that the water run over the temples of the head, or, what is easier in practice, confer Baptism on the forehead, because that it must be washed on the crown is nowhere prescribed. Cf. Noldin, Th. M., III, n. 60. Certain authors, such as Lugo and Genicot, judge Baptism conferred on the hairs to be as certain as on the skin, for if the hairs of an animal are washed, the animal is said to be washed. Nevertheless it can be answered that this is true of an animal which cannot be washed otherwise, not of a man who by his nature does not have hairs everywhere, and therefore can be washed immediately.

3. Ablution by the one baptizing: for if it were done by the baptized person, or by a third person, or by a natural cause alone, e.g., while a child falls into water, the words would be false: I baptize thee. Baptism is valid if someone holds an infant under falling water without the help of another, or under water already poured out by another, because the one holding is the sole cause of the ablution; but if another intends or knows that he is pouring water upon the infant, Baptism is doubtful because it is doubted whether the one who holds or the one by whose help the water descends is the cause of the ablution.

IV. For liceity there is required pure and specially consecrated water; and in the Latin Church the ablution is to be done by triple infusion, in the manner of a cross. He sins mortally against reverence toward the sacrament who without necessity employs impure, dirty, turbid water, or who in solemn Baptism does not use consecrated water, or changes the usual manner of ablution, or does not make the triple infusion. But if in a case of necessity consecrated water is lacking, blessed water is to be employed; otherwise natural water (S. Off., 22 Jun. 1883). Outside a case of necessity new water is to be blessed (17 Apr. 1839).

In merely private Baptism, even by a deacon not commissioned, it is better to use blessed water, or, if the one baptizing is a priest, even consecrated water.