Article III: On the Children of Non-Catholics to Be Baptized

149. Principle I. Infants of Jews and unbelievers, outside danger of death, are not to be baptized when their parents are ignorant of it or unwilling (can. 750, § 1). - For although they are baptized validly, as must be held against Durandus, nevertheless they are not baptized licitly, both because in this way the natural right of parents is violated, and because an injury is done to the faith and to the sacrament on account of the certain danger of defection, and because it is contrary to the custom and law of the Church: thus St. Thomas and the Thomists against the school of Scotus, which held this to be licit, unless in a case in which greater inconveniences would follow. This doctrine of St. Thomas the Church approved, namely Benedict XIV in the Constitution Postremo mense, February 28, 1747, and the Constitution Probe te meminisse, December 15, 1751, and the Instruction of S.C.P.F., August 17, 1777.

It is proved from St. Thomas: "Children, sons of unbelievers, either have the use of reason or they do not have it. But if they have it, already as to those things which are of divine and natural law, they begin to be of their own power, and therefore by their own will, against the will of their parents, they can receive Baptism, just as they can also contract marriage. And therefore such persons can licitly be admonished and induced to receive Baptism. - But if they do not yet have the use of free choice:

According to natural law they are under the care of their parents, so long as they cannot provide for themselves... And therefore it would be contrary to natural justice if such children were baptized against the will of their parents; just as also if someone having the use of reason were baptized unwillingly.

It would also be dangerous to baptize the children of unbelievers in such a way, because they would easily return to unbelief on account of natural affection toward their parents.

And therefore the custom of the Church does not have this, that the children of unbelievers be baptized against the will of their parents" (a. 10).

It is said: outside danger of death; for in danger the necessity of the infant's salvation prevails, which cancels the right of the parents, and there is not so great a danger of perversion.

150. Exceptionally these infants can be baptized in three cases:

When they are placed in such danger of death that they are prudently foreseen to die before attaining the use of reason (Holy Office, July 18, 1892); the danger is to be understood as proper to the infant, not common to all even when a plague is raging (S.C.P.F., August 17, 1777).

When, being placed outside the power of their parents (i.e. of father, mother, grandfather, grandmother) or guardians, they can be educated in the Catholic religion: for then neither is the right of the parents violated, nor is there danger of perversion, as if they have been exposed or abandoned by their parents, or if parents and guardians are entirely lacking, or have lost their right over them, or can in no way exercise it (can. 750, § 2, 2).

If both parents consent to Baptism, or one or the other, or the guardians who in place of the parents exercise paternal authority, or at least one of them, and at the same time there is hope of Christian education (Holy Office, February 13, 1867; can. 750, § 2, 1), or even hope of the conversion of the parents: for there is equal natural right in each parent, which in the case is committed to the Church, and, exercised in favor of the child, prevails over the perverse will of the others.

Nevertheless they ought not to be baptized, unless in proximate danger of death; - indeed not even while this danger stands, if the sacrament cannot be conferred without exciting the hatred and persecutions of unbelievers against the Christian religion: for the common good of the Church is to be preferred to the private good of one person (S.C.P.F., August 17, 1777).

151. Principle II. Infants of two heretics or schismatics, or of two Catholics who have fallen into apostasy, heresy, or schism, although they could be baptized by strict right, nevertheless the Church has established that generally the same norms be observed as for the infants of unbelievers (can. 751).

For the Church a) of itself can baptize infants of baptized parents, because these are subjected by Baptism to the laws of the Church; whence of itself it is the right of the Church to urge the observance of the divine law, and to compel those parents to the Baptism of their children or to baptize the children against the will of the parents.

b) Yet, since generally there is no hope of Catholic education, but on the contrary there is great danger of defection, the Church, for the sake of prudence, does not use her right, and has established that the norms handed down above for infants of unbelievers are to be observed. Hence they cannot be baptized if the parents, when for example a minister of their own sect is lacking, seek Baptism but are unwilling to promise Catholic education (Holy Office, August 26, 1885); on the contrary, if they promise, and at the same time there is probable hope of due education, even if only one seeks and promises.

c) These norms are said to be observed generally, because special circumstances can be present which counsel otherwise.

152.

152. Observation. - The same norms are not prescribed as to be applied to infants of Catholics who, having become indifferent, do not live in a Christian manner: for those infants, if they are offered, ordinarily can be baptized, because some hope of Catholic education is easily present. The same holds if one or the other parent is Catholic; in which case this one, as far as he can, ought to admonish the non-Catholic spouse concerning the Baptism conferred (S.C.P.F., November 20, 1672).