Question Three: Concerning Unborn Children to Be Baptized in the Mother's Uterus

I. In the question whether Baptism is validly conferred upon an infant who has not yet been born from the maternal uterus, a twofold opinion of theologians is given:

The first opinion, of almost all the ancients, Saint Augustine, Saint Isidore, Saint Thomas, etc., denies it, both because no one can be reborn before he has been born (Jn. III, 5), and because the one to be baptized must be a distinct member of human society, and therefore it does not suffice to wash the mother; but the infant himself in the uterus is enclosed, as the Roman Ritual says (tit. 2, c. 1, n. 16; cf. S. Th. in IV Sent., d. 6, q. 1, a. 1; and III, q. 68, a. 11). Nevertheless this reason does not hold because it supposes, and in this supposition the Ritual speaks, that the infant cannot be directly and immediately reached, which today is false; for he can be reached by an instrument. But the first reason has only slight probability: for a man is already said to be born in the uterus, as is read, Mt. I, 20: "That which is born in her is of the Holy Spirit."

Whence the second opinion, which is of a few ancients and of almost all more recent authors, rightly affirms it: for he who has contracted original sin and is a man in the way, is capable of Baptism (Council of Trent, sess. 5, can. 4), provided he can be reached.

II. Concerning such Baptism a threefold hypothesis can be made.¹ Either 1) a part of the infant cannot be reached, but only the veils by which he is covered; or 2) the veils having been ruptured or artificially perforated, a part of the infant in the uterus can be reached by hand or instrument; or 3) some member having been emitted, while the rest of the body has not yet been born, can be washed.

¹ Concerning unborn children to be baptized in the uterus, as also concerning abortive fetuses to be baptized and monsters, the following can usefully be consulted: De Smet, De Sacris in genere, Bapt. et Conf., and Collationes Brug., t. VIII (1903); likewise, Revue Eccl. de Liege, t. III (1907-08), n. 2; t. V (1909-10), nn. 1, 2, 3; Capellmann, Eschbach, and Antonelli in the works cited; manuals such as Tanquerey, Noldin, Prummer, Vermeersch; likewise Salsmans, Geneeskundige Plichtenleer.

In the third case: a) if the infant has emitted the head, Baptism is conferred validly and without any condition, nor afterward is it to be repeated, according to the ritual (tit. 2, c. 1, n. 16; cf. can. 746, § 2):² for the man is now judged born because the principal part has been born. b) If he has emitted another member, other than the head, Baptism is doubtful, nevertheless in necessity it is to be attempted under condition: si es capax, or si possum, but after perfect birth it is to be repeated under condition: si nondum es baptizatus (can. 746, § 3).³ c) If, with some member emitted and Baptism conferred on it, the danger of death perseveres, and another member, nobler or nearer to the head, is emitted, let him again be baptized under condition: si nondum es baptizatus.

² "If an infant has emitted the head and danger of death is imminent, let him be baptized on the head; nor afterward, if he has come forth living, is he again to be baptized under condition," can. 746, § 2.

³ "If he has emitted another member, on that member, if danger is imminent, let him be baptized under condition; but then, if having been born he has lived, he is again to be baptized under condition," can. 746, § 3.

In the second case, Baptism is very probably valid; nevertheless, since it is not altogether certain, let it be conferred under condition: si es capax. It must be done on the head if it is possible, and always after perfect birth it is to be repeated under condition: si nondum es baptizatus, as Benedict XIV and S. C. Council, 12 July 1794 and 16 Mar. 1897, teach; cf. can. 746, § 5.⁴ The reason is both because Baptism is in itself somewhat doubtful, and because it is very difficult to know whether one has sufficiently reached the head. Whence, Baptism having been conferred in the uterus, if a nobler member than that which was washed is afterward emitted and the danger of death perseveres, let it again be conferred under condition, as was said for the preceding case.

⁴ "A fetus baptized in the uterus must, after birth, be baptized again under condition," can. 746, § 5.

In the first case, Baptism is very doubtful; nevertheless it is to be attempted under condition, si possum or si es capax, if a better mode is lacking. But the case is very rare, for almost always the veils of the infant can be ruptured and the infant himself reached.

III. The following are enumerated as cases in which Baptism is to be administered in the mother's uterus:

1. when the mother is so afflicted by disease that probably the infant will die in the uterus, e.g., in the case of contagious disease, or if in the time of delivery the female genital canal or the uterus is torn, or there is grave hemorrhage which brings great danger to the life of the mother;

2. when delivery is more laborious and it is to be feared lest the fetus succumb to the labor, e.g., on account of asphyxia in a delayed and slow exit, on account of abnormal presentation, on account of hydrocephalus or excessive narrowness of the pelvis;

3. when, on account of doubt concerning the death of the mother, Caesarean section must be deferred longer; or, the mother being certainly dead, it is feared that the fetus is going to perish before the end of the operation;

4. in certain dangers of abortions, when the abortion already begun has become inevitable and it is probable that the fetus is going to die before expulsion, e.g., if the placenta is prematurely separated or the amniotic fluid is lost, or if it is feared lest uncontrollable vomiting or vehement hemorrhages bring abortion with them.

Nevertheless Baptism is not to be administered thus unless there is necessity in every way, according to can. 746, § 1: "Let no one enclosed in the mother's uterus be baptized, as long as there is probable hope that he can be baptized when duly brought forth."

IV. Let it be noted that the cutting of the veils by means of an instrument can easily be done in the last times of gestation, when the fetus is at least probably viable, after the fifth or sixth month completed, if there is instant danger of death before perfect birth; but in the earlier months very rarely,⁵ because of the great danger which, from the destruction of the veils, is brought to the delivery, the infant, and the mother. Whence it is not to be attempted unless it is certainly established both that the fetus is living and that his life is being shortened: for then before all things the soul would have to be saved. Nor would Baptism on the umbilical cord then suffice, since the infant himself could be reached.

⁵ Antonelli adds: Very rarely at this time can it be known whether the fetus certainly lives. The cutting of the membranes and the flow of amniotic fluid would increase the difficulty of delivery and expose the fetus and the mother to grave dangers of health; and since in this case it cannot be known whether some part has been washed by water, it does not seem expedient, on account of a doubtful spiritual effect, that bodily dangers are to be accelerated, t. II, n. 16.

Perhaps someone will say that cutting the membranes in the first months is equivalent to direct killing, which is never licit, not even for conferring Baptism. But the matter can be sustained thus: the very perforation of the membranes, in this case, is an action which removes an element necessary for temporal life, namely the amniotic fluid whose effusion it causes, but equally immediately confers an element necessary for spiritual life: the possibility of reaching the infant and conferring Baptism. In other words: it removes the extreme spiritual necessity, namely the membrane which is an obstacle to Baptism; but this brings with it and at the same time places the infant in extreme temporal necessity, from the consequent loss of the fluid.⁶ Nor is there parity with procuring the safety of the mother, because the possibility of this is not obtained except by means of harm to the infant, namely the very effusion of the fluid.

⁶ It was said: to remove an element necessary for temporal life, if this does not signify killing, then one must already despair of the value of terms. Resp.: It signifies killing; but what follows from this? A killing action is licit on account of a proportionately grave reason, if it equally immediately produces eternal salvation, as, for example, can be the case in Baptism conferred in icy water (see above p. 52). But because an action of killing, just as also of saving, can be mediate or immediate, and in the case it is not a question of an immediately killing action, just as neither of an immediately sanctifying and saving action, therefore, for the sake of clarity, we have preferred to write: to remove an element necessary for temporal life is licit if it is compensated by the conferral of an element necessary for spiritual life, provided that this is obtained equally immediately, not by means of the evil effect.

V. The manner of administering Baptism in the mother's uterus. It is conferred, the veils having first been ruptured if it is possible, by means of some irrigating instrument, e.g., a little siphon (seringue) full of water or with some sponge; but with the other hand one must inquire whether the water touches a part of the infant.⁷ But if these are lacking, it is conferred by the moistened hand alone, although this mode is easily doubtful (S. Off., 14 Dec. 1898). Warm water is to be employed, because cold water would harm the mother; indeed, when true danger of death in the mother is to be feared from pure water, it can be mixed with corrosive bichloride of mercury (HgCl2; eau sublimée, met sublimaat vermengd water), one part of this chloride being dissolved in one thousand parts of water,⁸ as the Holy Office responded, 21 Aug. 1901.

⁷ This will be easy in ordinary cases, since presentation of the head is had at least 90 percent of the time.

⁸ Besides the aforesaid mixture, which furnishes an antiseptic means, the water must be altogether pure, lest diseases be introduced into the woman giving birth.

The ministry is ordinarily to be reserved to the physician, or, if he is lacking, to the midwife, who is to be instructed by the physician or by the parish priest.

The parish priest is to be warned about Baptism conferred in this way.