Article — Noldin, Summa of Moral Theology
Article First. On the Matter of Baptism
58. The valid remote matter of baptism is only natural water, which is such both in itself and in the common estimation of men. This is clear from the words of Sacred Scripture: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit," etc.1 We know from the definition of the Church that these words are to be understood of true and natural water.2 Therefore what water is to be held as valid matter must be taken not so much from the analysis of chemists as from the use and estimation of men; for when Christ determined the matter of the sacraments, he spoke according to the notions of the people and common sense.
Matter certainly valid is: a. water of springs, wells, rivers, the sea, ponds, marshes, lakes, cisterns; b. rainwater, distilled water, water produced by chemical art, water dissolved from ice, snow, or hail; c. sulphurous or mineral water, water collected from vapor, dew, or flowing in stormy weather from a wall, leaves, etc.; d. muddy water mixed with another substance, provided water is truly and certainly the predominant matter, even if it has been altered as to color, odor, or taste. Nor does it matter whether the water is cold or warm.
Matter certainly invalid is: a. milk, blood, spittle; b. wine, oil, beer, thick broth from fat, etc.; c. mud, ink; d. juice expressed from fruits, e.g., apples, pears, etc.; for all these are neither in fact nor in name water; e. tears, sweat, saliva; for these are indeed water in fact, but not in name nor in the common estimation of men.
Matter doubtful is: a. very thin broth, lye, very thin beer, a drink made from the coffee bean or from tea leaves, water from dissolved salt; b. the fluid flowing from a vine and other plants; c. rose-water or other liquids expressed from plants; d. snow or ice not yet dissolved. For although in this state they are not natural water, nevertheless, since they are dissolved by contact, and thus some washing can be had, they are admitted by some as doubtful matter.
1 John 3, 5. Cf. Acts 8, 36.
59. The licit remote matter. Having made the distinction between solemn baptism, private baptism, and baptism of necessity (n. 55), let this be by way of rule: in any baptism whatever consecrated water is to be preferred, but it is not prescribed in every baptism; rather, lustral water (blessed water), or even natural water (not blessed), can be used, even if consecrated water is present. Therefore:
In solemn baptism the licit matter is only consecrated and clean water without admixture of foreign matter.
In private baptism it is suitable that consecrated water be used, if it is present, or at least lustral or blessed water; nevertheless neither a priest nor a layman sins who uses natural water, even if consecrated or blessed water is present, unless this is prescribed by diocesan statute (as in England).
In baptism of necessity, i.e., in danger of death, any matter whatever can and ought to be used, provided it is not certainly invalid, under this condition: if this matter is valid. But if he who has been baptized with matter of this kind survives, and there is certainly valid matter available, he must again be baptized under this condition: if he has not been baptized. Just as for conferring baptism under the first condition a slight probability concerning the validity of the matter suffices, so for rebaptizing under the other condition a slight probability concerning the invalidity of the baptism suffices: for it is a question of a sacrament most necessary.
a. Although a slight admixture of a foreign substance does not render the water of baptism invalid matter, nevertheless that water, whether it is consecrated or not consecrated, must, out of reverence for the sacrament, be clean from foreign substance, unless there is an excusing cause. Therefore, if in a case of necessity infants are to be baptized in the mother's womb, it is permitted to use water mixed with corrosive bichloride of mercury (one part of mercuric chloride with a thousand parts of water) (Quecksilberchlorid, Sublimat), when from pure water a true danger of disease in the mother is to be feared; but it is not permitted to use it when there is no danger of disease in the mother.1
b. He sins gravely who, outside a case of necessity, uses turbid, muddy, or miry water, even if it is valid matter, because he gravely injures the reverence due to the sacrament.
c. Water simply blessed, not consecrated, although it is valid matter, is nevertheless gravely illicit in solemn baptism outside a case of necessity. If in a case of necessity consecrated water is lacking, blessed water must be used (made according to the shorter formula, if this can be done; otherwise natural water must be used).2
d. If the consecrated water itself, which is kept in the baptismal font, appears full of dregs and foul-smelling, in a case of necessity pure unconsecrated water must be taken, or, if it is present, lustral or blessed water, even if the foul water is valid matter. Outside a case of necessity new water must be blessed according to the formula prescribed in the Roman Ritual.3
e. If the water of baptism is too cold, it can be warmed by being brought to the fire or furnace, or even a little warmed natural water can be mixed with it, lest the cold water harm the little child. If the parents ask that the infant be baptized with Jordan water which they have procured for themselves, a small quantity of that water can be mixed with the consecrated water.
f. In baptisms which in some regions are held at home against the prescription of the Church, consecrated water must be used; for baptisms of this kind, which are performed by priests outside a case of necessity with all the sacred ceremonies, have the character of solemn baptism.
1 Holy Office, 21 Aug. 1901.
2 Holy Office, 22 June 1883.
3 Holy Office, 17 Apr. 1839.
60. On the consecration of baptismal water. 1. From the prescription of the Church, the water of baptism must be consecrated on the vigil of Easter and on the vigil of Pentecost.1 This obligation is judged grave, because it is of great importance that in solemn baptism water consecrated by a special blessing for this end, and mixed with the oil of catechumens and sacred chrism, be used.
Therefore, according to the mind of the Church, it must be judged an abuse to be entirely eliminated if the consecration of the baptismal font is omitted on the Saturday of Pentecost.2 Missionaries are commanded to consecrate water or to carry consecrated water with them whenever they can do this without grave inconvenience.3 Lest baptismal water ever be lacking, it can be prepared at any time when necessity demands it, but according to the formula which is found in the Roman Ritual.4 Even if the water consecrated at the prescribed time seems likely to run short, other unblessed water can be mixed with it, though in a smaller quantity.5
- In the consecration of baptismal water: a. oils blessed by the bishop in the very same year on the Lord's Supper must be used. b. If a priest cannot obtain recent oils for himself, let him bless the font without the infusion of the sacred oils, which afterward, reciting privately the omitted prayers, he is to pour into the blessed water. c. But if, before he can receive the oils, he must baptize someone, in the solemn blessing itself let him pour in the old oils of the preceding year.6
1 Roman Ritual, tit. 2, c. 1, n. 4.
2 S. C. R., 7 Dec. 1844, n. 2878; 13 Apr. 1874, n. 3331.
3 S. C. de Prop. Fid., 8 Sept. 1869.
4 Roman Ritual, tit. 2, c. 1, n. 6, and c. 7.
5 Ibid., tit. 2, c. 1, n. 5. Cn. 757, 2.
6 S. C. R., 31 Jan. 1896, n. 3879.
61. The proximate matter of baptism is the washing of the body, which must be done by the minister himself in such a way that the baptized person, by the moral judgment of men, is considered truly washed; otherwise the words of the form would not be verified.
The washing can be done in three ways: by immersion, sprinkling, and pouring; nevertheless, according to the present practice of the Roman Church, baptism must be conferred by a threefold washing or pouring. And although one pouring suffices for validity, nevertheless a threefold pouring, at least where solemn baptism is concerned, is prescribed under grave obligation in the Roman Ritual.1
Therefore, in order that the person to be baptized be considered truly washed, and thus that the baptism be certainly valid, it is required:
a. That the water flow; hence, if one or another drop of water only is used, which adheres to the skin without flowing, baptism is doubtful and licit only in a case of necessity.
alpha. Therefore he who applies a wet finger or hand, or a wet cloth, to the forehead merely by touching it, does not baptize validly, because he does not wash the infant. If someone baptizes by way of anointing on the forehead with the thumb moistened in baptismal water, the baptism is doubtful, because there is no true washing.2 But he who successively touches the forehead of the person to be baptized with a wet hand or cloth, according to the common opinion of authors, certainly baptizes validly, because there is true washing.3
beta. No determinate quantity of water is required for valid baptism; consequently there does not seem to be a reason for doubting the value of a baptism in which only one or another drop is used, provided the drops truly flow. Nevertheless, since several authors doubt concerning this baptism, it should be repeated under condition.
b. That it immediately touch the person to be baptized; hence, if the water touches the garments only, baptism is certainly invalid; and if it touches the hair only, baptism is in some degree doubtful.
alpha. Some used to say that baptism conferred upon the hair is valid, because, since the hair is part of the infant, the infant is washed whose hair is washed; others, on the contrary, affirmed that it was invalid, because the hairs are not part of the infant, and therefore the infant is not washed whose hairs are washed. But now it can scarcely be denied that the hairs truly are part of a man, just as nails truly are a part of a man, although they are not informed by the soul. Hairs in a man are situated as wool is in sheep or feathers in birds; but we say that a sheep or a bird is washed when its wool or feathers are washed. Therefore, although the value of this baptism is almost certain, nevertheless, since several and great authors, after considering the internal reasons, doubt concerning its value, it can and must be repeated under condition.4 But if the head of the infant is covered with hair, the priest, baptizing upon the hair, must, while with the right hand he pours water upon the crown of the head, part the hair with the left hand, or take care that the water flow down over the temples of the head.
beta. Baptism conferred upon the afterbirth is invalid. - Until birth the infant is enveloped in a covering composed of three membranes entirely distinct. The outer membrane, which is called the decidua, is formed from the interior part of the uterus, and therefore by no reckoning can it be held as part of the infant. And upon this, indeed, water is poured if the infant is baptized upon the afterbirth. The two inner membranes, of which one is called the amnion and the other the chorion, but which are commonly called the afterbirth, arise from the egg and therefore in some way can be called part of the infant; but they constitute by no means an integral part of the infant, but his covering to be cast off in birth. Therefore baptism can validly be conferred neither upon the decidua nor upon the afterbirth.5
gamma. Baptism conferred upon a head covered with an ulcerous crust is valid; for the crust upon which the water is poured is nothing other than the skin of the infant foully disfigured by disease. Therefore he is said to wash the infant who washes his head covered with a crust; otherwise a man whose whole head is covered with smallpox could neither be washed nor validly baptized.
delta. Baptism conferred on an infant upon a head still covered with filth before washing is valid; for by the fact that water is poured upon the filth, the head of the infant is said to be washed, which indeed is washed precisely in order that it may be cleansed from filth.
c. That it be poured upon the head; for in order that the person to be baptized be considered washed, it is not necessary that the whole body be washed, but it suffices and is required that the head be washed. Therefore if water is poured upon a less principal part (hand, foot, arm, etc.), the baptism is more probably invalid; and if it is poured upon a more principal part (breast, neck, shoulders), it is most probably valid, yet always at least somewhat doubtful. Therefore, if it can be done, it must or at least can be repeated under condition.
alpha. There are some who say that baptismal water must be poured upon the crown of the person to be baptized, but this is prescribed nowhere. On the contrary, in order to exclude doubts concerning the value of a baptism which is conferred on the crown of an infant whose head is covered with hair, it is better to baptize on the forehead.
beta. Baptism conferred on a more principal part (neck, breast, shoulders), according to the very common opinion of doctors of great name (Busenbaum, Suarez, Holzmann, Tanner, Lacroix, etc.), is valid; nor does St. Alphonsus seriously doubt concerning its validity, since he does not say that baptism conferred in this way must be repeated, but only that it can licitly be repeated for greater caution (n. 107, q. 4). And indeed, a man washed on such a part is said simply to be washed, just as one wounded there is said simply to be wounded. From this it follows that repetition of baptism conferred on the neck or on the breast can safely be omitted where it cannot be performed without difficulty.
gamma. If someone pronounces the form while an infant slips into water, the baptism is invalid, because he who baptizes does not himself wash the infant.
delta. If someone places a child under water flowing by nature, e.g., falling rain, he baptizes validly, because he truly washes the person to be baptized, and indeed he does it himself. But if he places the child under water poured out by another man, a distinction must be made: if for baptizing he uses water which another pours out either for another end or only so that by pouring out water he may help the one baptizing, the baptism is valid, because there is one who baptizes; but if he knowingly uses water which another pours out for this end, that he may help the one baptizing by applying the matter, the baptism is invalid, because one applies the matter and another pronounces the form.
epsilon. Whether baptism is valid if someone throws an infant into water and at the same time pronounces the form. - It is valid, and in a case of extreme necessity, namely when otherwise the infant is going to die without baptism, it seems even licit. And it is valid indeed, because there is washing equally as in baptism conferred by immersion, and there is no necessity that emergence follow immersion. But it is licit because there is not a direct killing of the infant, but a direct immersion for conferring baptism, from which by accident the death of the infant follows; for he who submerges an infant, not with the will of killing but of baptizing, is not said directly to kill the infant, even if from the same action, beyond the intention, the death of the infant follows.6
eta. Concerning baptism conferred in the mother's womb there are some who doubt whether it is valid, both because he cannot be reborn who has not yet been born, and because an infant in the womb cannot be washed, since, being enveloped in the afterbirth, he cannot be immediately touched by water. Ballerini (ad n. 239) indeed judges such baptism certainly valid, both because an infant existing in the mother's womb is already a man in the wayfaring state and in some sense is already said to be truly born, and because he himself can be touched immediately by means of an instrument more recently invented. Nevertheless the value of this baptism is not so certain that the infant, if he is afterward born, ought not to be rebaptized under condition.7 But if the infant has put forth the head and danger of death is imminent, he is to be baptized on the head, and afterward, if he has escaped alive, he will not have to be baptized again.8
1 Roman Ritual, tit. 2, c. 1, n. 4.
2 Holy Office, 14 Dec. 1898.
3 Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 107.
4 Cf. Lugo, Responsa moralia, l. 1, dub. 1.
5 Cf. Capellmann, Medicina pastoralis, p. 106.
6 Cf. Ballerini-Palmieri IV, n. 720; Lehmkuhl II, 62 (n. 86).
7 S. C. C., 12 July 1794. As recently as 16 Mar. 1897 the same congregation commanded that baptism be repeated in this case.
8 Roman Ritual, tit. 2, c. 1, n. 16.