Article — Noldin, Summa of Moral Theology
Article Third. On Adults to Be Baptized
73. Assertions. 1. An adult who has known the obligation of baptism is bound to receive it as soon as he conveniently can; for each one is bound by divine law to enter the Church, and baptism is the door of the Church. But one is not to be baptized unless knowing and willing and well instructed.
What delay of baptism, not excused by a just cause, is to be held grave cannot be determined. There are some who think that delay of baptism even until danger of death is not of itself a grave sin, unless it is done out of contempt.1 But it seems incredible that a man could neglect through the whole course of his life the principal obligation of human life, namely that of serving God and tending toward the last end. Moreover, it is the will of Christ that baptism not be deferred through one's whole life without a cause of necessity; for Christ wills the faithful in this life to be gathered into the visible Church, which they must enter through baptism. Therefore the holy Fathers of the Church gravely reprehend the custom of deferring baptism until a more mature, advanced age or until death, and most theologians affirm the grave obligation of receiving baptism without delay, unless moral impossibility excuses. Therefore as soon as a man morally can, he is bound to fulfill this obligation. But it must be conceded that the Church has never determined nor can determine the time for receiving baptism for unbelievers, since they are not subject to the Church.2
- In danger of death, all those who are presumed to have the intention of baptism are to be baptized at least under condition, after instruction has been given, as far as possible, concerning the mysteries which must necessarily be believed by necessity of means.
a. Concerning the existence of the dispositions which are necessary for receiving baptism validly and fruitfully (intention, faith, knowledge, contrition), certainty is not required, but probability suffices, even only slight probability; for since the sacraments are for men, they can be administered to one who is placed in danger of life even with a slight probability concerning their value.
b. Whether a missionary can licitly baptize one whom he finds dying, an unbeliever already deprived of the senses. - Since it is not licit to frustrate a sacrament, and an unbeliever who has no desire of baptism is incapable of it, it is asked how the missionary must be certain concerning the existence of the intention which is required for validly receiving baptism (n. 41, 3): namely, whether a positive sign of intention is required for licitly baptizing an unbeliever, or whether intention can be presumed in the same way in which, in Catholics deprived of the senses, the intention of the sacrament (of absolution, of extreme unction) is presumed. For a sacrament to be licitly administered there is required a probable judgment concerning the intention of the sacrament in the subject. Now in an adult Catholic this judgment is founded on the very religion which he professes; for it is rightly presumed that a Catholic existing in danger of death wishes to be helped by the means instituted by Christ for dying well. Therefore the practice now flourishes in the Church of absolving and anointing with extreme unction all the dying deprived of the senses, unless it is morally clear that they positively reject the sacraments.3 But in unbelievers that probable judgment, even though only slight, cannot be formed otherwise than from the circumstances of place, person, condition, etc. Therefore it is not licit to baptize indiscriminately all pagans deprived of the senses in danger of death, but only those whom the missionary, having considered all the circumstances, prudently judges to have at least the implicit will of receiving baptism.4 Hence if the dying man himself is unknown to him, let the missionary, as far as can be done, ask others whether they know anything about his dispositions, whether perhaps he asked for baptism or heard Christian instruction, or at least by living well showed care for his salvation. As to the rest, nothing remains except that he commend them to the divine mercy. Then, if one baptized in this way should return to himself, he would have to be baptized again under condition, unless he testifies that he had a firm purpose of receiving baptism.
c. Dying unbelievers who are not deprived of the senses are indeed to be questioned about their intention; but licitly, even when asking for the sacrament, they cannot be baptized if they lack the necessary dispositions, namely due knowledge and contrition. Therefore they must be instructed concerning those things necessary by necessity of means, and also concerning the obligation of contrition.5
d. In order that insane persons who at some time had the use of reason can validly be baptized, it is required that before insanity they conceived the will of receiving baptism; in order that they may in reality be sanctified, it is further required that they elicited an act of faith and supernatural sorrow for sins. If, after the circumstances have been considered, it is not morally clear that this will was lacking, in practice they are always to be baptized under condition, whether in danger of death or even outside it, where no hope of recovering reason shines forth, because they are at least slightly supposed to have had at least an implicit desire of baptism. But if they have lucid intervals, they are to be baptized if they wish, while they are in possession of their mind.
- Children of unbelievers who have the use of reason and ask for baptism can and of themselves ought to be baptized even against the will of the parents, provided they have been sufficiently instructed and show a firm will of living as Catholics; for he who has attained the use of reason is, in his moral actions, fully his own master, and cannot be hindered by anyone else in procuring eternal salvation.
Since youths who are baptized against the will of their parents ordinarily cannot be separated from their parents, and, being left under their power, are exposed to various and indeed great dangers of relapsing into their former errors, their constancy must be well tested before they are admitted to baptism. And because from the fact that children are baptized against the will of their parents serious inconveniences sometimes arise for the Catholic cause, great prudence is needed in admitting them to baptism. Where, on account of baptism conferred against the will of the parents, either the defection of the baptized person or another grave evil must rightly and deservedly be feared, ordinarily it will be better to defer baptism until a more mature age.
Note. The Code of Canon Law, cn. 753, gives two admonitions: a. both the priest who is about to baptize adults and the adults themselves, if they are healthy, ought to be fasting; b. baptized adults should immediately assist at the sacrifice of the Mass and receive holy communion, unless grave causes prevent.
Article Fourth. On Those to Be Baptized Under Condition
There are chiefly two cases in which there is question of repeating baptism under condition: a. if some are converted from heresy; b. if little children are baptized privately because of danger of death.
1 Genicot, Theol. mor. inst., II, n. 149.
2 Cf. Laymann, l. 5, tr. 2, c. 6, n. 8; Suarez, disp. 31, sect. 2, n. 3.
3 Lehmkuhl, Casus consc., II, n. 45; Genicot, Theol. mor. inst., II, n. 150.
4 Holy Office, 30 Mar. 1898.
5 Holy Office, 1 Apr. 1898.
74. On converted heretics. Although baptism conferred by heretics is of itself valid, nevertheless, with the unbelief of non-Catholic ministers increasing day by day at the present time, it is greatly to be feared that non-Catholic ministers baptize invalidly because of defect of an essential condition. Nevertheless the Church has always disapproved the custom of rebaptizing under condition indiscriminately those baptized by heretics, and has prescribed that in individual cases inquiry be made into the validity of the baptism, whatever may be the sect from which the non-Catholics have come, unless the inquiry is morally impossible, or from the circumstances it is clear either that the sect confers no baptism, or that no inquiry can supply certainty concerning the value of the baptism.1 Now:
a. If, after inquiry has been made, the value of the baptism conferred is certainly clear, they are in no way to be rebaptized.
b. But if concerning the value of the baptism there remains a doubt not wholly empty, they are to be rebaptized under condition.
c. But if it is certainly clear that the sacrament was invalid, they are to be rebaptized absolutely.
d. Finally, if either no inquiry can be instituted or nothing can be learned concerning the value of the baptism, today it is rightly presumed to be invalid and therefore to be repeated under condition.2
In what circumstances an adult is to be baptized under condition. If the doubt concerns the dispositions of the subject, baptism is to be conferred absolutely; for in this case baptism validly conferred afterward revives when the baptized person obtains the due disposition for himself. But it could not revive, as being invalid, if it had been conferred under condition. Only if the doubt concerns a condition required for validity (intention) is baptism to be conferred under condition (if thou art capable), because in this case it cannot revive, since it is either valid or invalid.3
1 Holy Office, 21 Feb. 1883.
2 Cf. decree of the Holy Office, 30 Nov. 1878, which at the same time ordered corrected the case proposed by Gury (De baptismo VIII, 2).
3 S. C. de Prop. Fide, 6 June 1860.
75. On infants privately baptized. It is not licit to baptize again without discrimination all infants baptized at home by midwives or other laypersons, since this is opposed to Catholic dogmas. Therefore in individual cases, even with witnesses heard if any were present,1 it must be diligently investigated whether the baptism conferred at home was valid. But if a doubt not wholly empty concerning its value remains, it is to be repeated under condition; but if it has been established that it was validly conferred, only the ceremonies must be supplied.2 And indeed, where a midwife or another person who is of good reputation, worthy of faith, circumspect, and instructed in the rite of baptizing asserts that the infant was rightly baptized by her, there is no reason why the value of the baptism should be doubted. But to repeat baptism where no doubt concerning its value exists is certainly gravely illicit.3
In order that a judgment concerning the value of the baptism can be formed, it must be asked: a. who baptized and in what circumstances; for if the baptism was conferred by a person who is accustomed to be anxious, disturbed, and perplexed, or if baptism was conferred by a prudent person indeed, but in difficult circumstances, in which because of a sudden event there was confusion or because of danger to the mother and infant all things had to be done hastily and in a disturbed way, there is more easily room for doubting; b. what form he pronounced; c. what and how much water he poured, and where he poured it; d. whether he pronounced the form and washed at the same time; e. what intention he had.
1 Therefore cn. 742, 1 prescribes that in private baptism two witnesses or at least one be used.
2 Roman Ritual, tit. 2, c. 1, n. 53; S. C. C., 27 Mar. 1883.
3 From the prescription of the Roman Ritual (c. 1, n. 13), the pastor must take care that midwives know and observe well the correct rite of baptizing. Hence the pastor is bound diligently to instruct and examine them in those things which are necessary concerning the matter, form, intention, and manner of conferring baptism, especially also on abortive and not-yet-born fetuses. For this end the booklets can be of use: Unterricht uber die Nottaufe (Munich, self-published by the archiepiscopal chancery of the Ordinariate); Unterricht uber die Spendung der Nottaufe (Freiburg: Herder); Unterweisung der kath. Hebamme (Klagenfurt: Vereins-Buchdruckerei); likewise Berardi, Examen obstetricum circa baptismum (Faenza: Novelli, 1895).
76. Notes. 1. It is not licit before ordination to baptize under condition those who doubt concerning baptism conferred on themselves solely because they have been able to have no positive document or testimony of it, or because they were baptized by catechists or other less instructed Christians. For those who were born from Christian parents and educated by them in Christian fashion are altogether to be presumed to have been baptized. The same must be presumed also in the other case, as long as only negative doubts are brought forward, since it is clear that catechists are carefully chosen and diligently instructed for this office.1
Nor is it licit for a Catholic priest, in a case of mixed marriage before the marriage, to baptize under condition the non-Catholic party because of doubt concerning the value of the baptism, if that party declares that he wills to remain in heresy.2 For in order to contract marriage, certainty concerning the value of the baptism received is not required.
Exposed and found infants are not to be baptized even under condition if they have been found with a note which testifies concerning baptism conferred on them, and the note was written by a known and trustworthy man. But they are to be baptized under condition if they do not have a note testifying concerning baptism conferred, or if they have a note written by an unknown man or one not very worthy of faith. Cn. 749.
1 S. C. de Prop. Fid., 30 Sept. 1848.
2 Holy Office, 13 Apr. 1878.