Article IV: On Unborn Children to Be Baptized

S. Th. III, q. 68, a. 11.

153. State of the question. - By unborn are understood fetuses enclosed in the womb of the mother, or at least not yet perfectly brought forth. These, on account of grave illness or the condition of the mother, or because of difficult birth, can be in danger, so that it may be necessary to baptize them before birth. Now for those who are already partly brought forth, if they put forth the head, Baptism conferred upon it is certainly valid; if they put forth another member, Baptism conferred upon it is doubtful, according to what was said in n. 124. But concerning those who are entirely enclosed in the womb, there is a twofold opinion of theologians:

The first opinion, of almost all the older writers, denies that Baptism can validly be conferred upon them, both because no one can be reborn before he has been born (John III, 5), and because the one to be baptized must be a distinct member of human society, and consequently it does not suffice to wash the mother; but the infant himself is enclosed in the womb, as for centuries the Roman Ritual, t. 2, c. 1, n. 16, used to say after St. Thomas, q. 68, a. 11 and in IV Sent., d. 6, q. 1, a. 1. Yet this reason does not hold, because it supposes that the infant cannot be touched directly and immediately, which today is false: for commonly he can be touched by an instrument; - but the first reason has only slight probability: for a man is already said to be born in the womb, as is read in Mt. I, 20: "That which is born in her is of the Holy Spirit."

Whence the other opinion, which is of a few of the ancient writers but now morally of all the more recent writers, rightly affirms that Baptism is conferred validly upon infants in the mother's womb: for one who has contracted original sin and is man as wayfarer is capable of Baptism (Council of Trent, sess. 5, can. 4), provided he can be touched.

154. Principles. - I. "No one enclosed in the mother's womb is to be baptized until there is probable (in the proper sense, namely likely) hope that, duly brought forth, he can be baptized" (can. 746, § 1).

For outside a case of necessity it is not fitting to baptize in the womb, all the more because Baptism, on account of the difficulty of certainly washing the head of the infant, easily becomes doubtful; but to minister a doubtful sacrament is not licit outside necessity.

II. If probable hope is lacking that the infant can be duly brought forth:

1. "If the infant has put forth the head and danger of death is imminent, let him be baptized on the head; nor afterward, if he escapes alive, is he to be baptized again under condition.

2. "If he has put forth another member, let him be baptized on that member, if danger is imminent, under condition (if you are capable, or if I can); but then, if once born he lives, he is again to be baptized under condition (if you are not yet baptized)" (can. 746, § 2 and 3).

Since the principal member, namely the head, has been put forth, the infant is already considered born, because the chief part has been born, and therefore Baptism is certainly valid; on the contrary, if another member has been put forth, Baptism is not sufficiently certain. Hence theologians conclude: if, when some member has been put forth and Baptism has been conferred on it, danger of death persists, and another member much nobler or very near to the head is put forth, let him be baptized again under condition: if you are capable and are not yet baptized.

III. When danger of death is wholly imminent, an infant enclosed in the womb is, as far as possible, to be baptized under condition.

For in the case, before all else care must be taken for the eternal salvation of the infant. For this the membranes in which the infant is enclosed are to be broken, so that he may be washed immediately with water. The cutting of the membranes can easily be done by means of an instrument in instant danger of death during the last periods of gestation, when the fetus is at least probably viable; but in the earlier periods, very rarely, on account of the great danger brought upon the birth, the infant, and the mother from the destruction of the membranes; whence it is not to be attempted unless it is certain both that the fetus is living and that its life is being diminished: for then before all else the soul of the infant seems to have to be saved.

It is no obstacle that cutting the membranes in the first months is equivalent to direct killing, which can never be licit, not even for conferring Baptism. For in the case there is an action which immediately has a twofold effect: one good, the other evil. For the very perforation of the membranes does indeed take away an element necessary for the temporal life of the infant, namely the amniotic fluid, whose outpouring it causes; but just as immediately it confers an element necessary for spiritual life: the possibility of touching the infant and conferring Baptism. Namely, this possibility follows immediately from the very perforation, and not by means of the consequent outpouring of the fluid, and would subsist even if that fluid were not poured out.

Indeed it takes away extreme spiritual necessity by perforating the membrane which is the obstacle to Baptism, although in this way at the same time it places the infant in extreme temporal necessity, from the consequent loss of the fluid.¹

¹ Do not conclude from this that the cutting of the membranes can also be done for procuring the safety of the mother. For parity is lacking; because the possibility of saving the mother would not be obtained immediately, but only by means of harm to the infant, namely by means of the outpouring of the fluid.

IV. "A fetus baptized in the womb, after birth must again be baptized under condition (if you are not yet baptized)" (can. 746, § 5).

The reason is both because Baptism is in itself somewhat doubtful, on account of the probability, although slight, of the opinion asserting that no one can be reborn before he has been born; and because it is very difficult to know whether someone has sufficiently touched the head. Thus Benedict XIV and S.C.C., July 12, 1794 and March 16, 1897.

155. Question: Must a fetus be extracted from the womb of the mother so that it can be baptized? - St. Thomas says, ad 3: "Evils are not to be done so that goods may come, and therefore a man ought not to kill the mother in order to baptize the child." Whence Caesarean section, or incision of the mother's abdomen and uterus for extracting a living fetus, is illicit if it quasi-necessarily brings about the death of the mother.

A. While the mother is alive, the operation is licit, and of itself the mother is bound to undergo it, with these conditions given: if 1. the mother cannot give birth naturally; 2. the safety of the mother and infant can prudently be hoped for by means of the section, for neither the mother nor the fetus himself can be killed so that the latter, before he dies, may be baptized; and 3. in the judgment of an expert the infant cannot otherwise be baptized. For then by the law of charity the mother is bound under grave obligation to prefer the eternal salvation of the neighbor, namely the infant, to the inconvenience and danger of her own temporal life.

And so it is required that 1. the fetus, for the present circumstances, be viable, otherwise by extraction from the maternal womb he would be killed; 2. the mother be robust; 3. and the surgeon be expert: for then, on account of the progress of surgical art, the danger of death for the mother is commonly sufficiently remote.

In practice: a) The obligation of the mother rarely exists, because more often the fetus survives the dead mother or there is serious hope that he will survive, and because generally by means of an instrument he can be baptized in the womb; yet it would be erroneous to say that the mother is never obligated.²

² Some practically deny the obligation, or doubt concerning it, such as Genicot, Th. M., II, n. 144; Noldin, Th. M., II, n. 344; Cappello, op. cit., n. 165; because it ought to be certain that the infant cannot be saved in another way, and that he would certainly be saved by the operation. - But 1. in this matter absolute certitude is not required, but it suffices that this be morally certain; 2. also it is not required that the infant be certainly saved by the operation, but that there be probable hope of this: thus according to the rules handed down in the treatise on Charity, where it treats of help to be brought in a case of extreme spiritual necessity. Whence Fr. Schmitt emended the doctrine in this matter in the 20th edition which he gave of Noldin's work.

b) Even in the case in which she is bound to undergo the incision, generally prudence forbids admonishing the mother, if she is in good faith, concerning the grave obligation, on account of the danger lest perhaps, by denying consent, she die in the state of sin; nevertheless the priest, likewise the physician and relatives, ought to exhort her to the section.

c) The physician is bound to perform the section if it is sought from him, and is bound to exhort the mother that she undergo it, because by justice he is bound to employ the safer means for preserving the life of the mother and of the offspring; whence the priest should induce the physician to render this office.

d) By one not expert, for example by a priest, the section cannot be done while the mother is alive.

B. When a pregnant mother is certainly dead, immediately after death a Caesarean operation is to be performed, as the Ritual prescribes, tit. 2, c. 1, n. 20: "If a pregnant mother has died, the fetus, extracted by those whom it concerns, if he certainly lives, is to be baptized absolutely; if doubtfully, under condition" (can. 746, § 4).

The obligation arises from the grave precept of charity, by which we are bound to take counsel for the eternal salvation of the neighbor, in the case the infant, even with the greatest temporal inconveniences; and if the fetus is viable, there is added another reason of preserving his temporal life.

The section is to be done provided three conditions are present:

1. that the mother be morally certainly dead, whence, in doubt, it is not to be done except after the testimony of an expert concerning death;

2. that it be probable that the fetus lives; hence no one is bound to it in the beginnings of pregnancy, in the first six weeks, or according to others, in the second or third month, because then the fetus is almost always dead, or at least it is very uncertain whether he will come forth living; yet it is to be done in the fourth month, especially if the woman has perished by sudden or very rapid death, unless grave reasons are present for thinking that the fetus died before the mother or with her;

3. that a suitable person be present who has sufficient expertise to complete the section without danger to the fetus; yet no one is bound to learn the art or mode, because to satisfy the precept no one is bound to employ means remotely, namely when the precept is not yet urgent.

The obligation a) first regards the physician or surgeon, who is to be induced to do it even if he says the offspring is already dead, because in this matter they are accustomed to proceed rather lightly and to speak in this way so that they may not do the section;

b) but if he refuses or cannot be present, let anyone else suitable for this approach, as for example a midwife: for the precept of charity in extreme necessity of itself obliges all; concerning which therefore the priest should admonish, unless very grave inconveniences are feared;

c) but upon others, especially relatives, it is incumbent to take care that the section be done;

d) if others are lacking, the priest does not seem certainly bound to perform the section, both because of frequent lack of expertise, and because of indecency, and especially because of danger of scandal and of a greater evil from the slanders, hatred, and calumnies of enemies of religion: for the common good must be cared for, and the scandal of many avoided, more than the salvation of one infant procured (Holy Office, December 13, 1899); for which reason missionaries should abstain among the Chinese from demanding and carrying out the section (Holy Office, February 15, 1780). Yet these reasons do not hold for all circumstances, for example if the Catholic family is discreet, or in the missions, nevertheless with the Chinese excepted; whence, according to many, the priest would of himself be bound: although this may seem truer, nevertheless we do not dare to say that it is certain.³

³ Many teach that the priest is bound, such as Cangiamila, Debreyne, the Theologia Mechliniensis, Vering, Konings, Lehmkuhl; yet others deny it, such as Bouvier, Gousset, Marres, Berardi. The mode of doing the Caesarean operation is indicated in Dens, Theol. Mechl., Aertnijs, and in Antonelli, Medicina pastoralis, I, n. 446.

It should be noted that there is no doubt that the fetus can survive the mother for an hour, indeed for several hours. But so that the life of the infant may more easily be preserved, the uterus of the deceased mother is to be covered with cloths, so that it may retain warmth; but to open the mother's mouth, lest the infant perish from lack of respiration, is of no utility, because he does not breathe through the mother.

156. Observations. - 1. Baptism in the womb of the mother, the membranes first having been broken if this is possible, is conferred by means of some irrigating instrument, for example a small siphon full of water, or with some sponge, but with the other hand one must investigate whether the water touches a part of the infant; - but if these means are lacking, it is conferred by the moistened hand alone, although that mode is easily doubtful (Holy Office, December 14, 1898). Warm or tepid water should be used, because cold water would harm the mother; indeed, when from pure water a true danger of death in the mother is to be feared, it can be mixed with corrosive mercuric bichloride, one part of this chloride dissolved in a thousand parts of water, as we know from the response of the Holy Office, August 21, 1901.

2. The ministry is ordinarily to be performed by a physician, or, if he is lacking, by a midwife, who is to be taught by a physician or by the pastor.

3. The pastor is to be informed concerning Baptism conferred in this way (can. 778).