Article — Prümmer, Manuale Theologiae Moralis
Article III. On Baptizing Adults
133. Who is considered an adult. In relation to receiving baptism, those who after the seventh year of age enjoy the use of reason are considered adults; but under the name of little children or infants come those not yet seven years old, and with them are numbered persons insane from infancy, at whatever age they may be.175
For a grave and reasonable cause, the local Ordinary can permit the ceremonies prescribed for the baptism of infants to be employed in the baptism of adults.176
The baptism of adults is accustomed to occur in two cases: 1. when an infidel embraces the Catholic religion; 2. when a heretic concerning whose reception of baptism a doubt exists returns to the bosom of the Church.
175 Code of Canon Law, c. 745, § 2.
176 Ibid., c. 755, § 2.
134. 1. An adult infidel who believes the truth of the Catholic religion must be baptized as soon as possible. The reason is evident. For everyone is bound by divine law to embrace the true religion and the Church, in which baptism holds a very excellent place. It is not established, however, what delay of baptism made without a reasonable cause is a mortal sin. Concerning this matter St. Thomas177 writes: "A person is not bound to receive baptism immediately after he has the intention of baptism, such that he sins mortally unless he is baptized immediately; nor is there any determinate time beyond which, if he delays baptism, he incurs mortal sin. But it can happen that in delaying baptism there will be a mortal sin, or there will not be; and this must be weighed from the cause of the delay." From these words it follows that for a reasonable cause it is lawful to delay the baptism of an adult even for a long time. Such reasonable causes are, for example, instruction in the Catholic religion which must be given and perfected, and most grave persecutions to be feared here and now. Therefore, for example, the baptism of a twelve-year-old Jewish boy could licitly be delayed until a more mature age if his parents would otherwise cast him out of the house and thrust him into misery. But when baptism of water must be delayed, baptism of desire must be received immediately, and all proximate dangers of perversion are to be eliminated according to one's ability, as was already said above, n. 127. It was already said above, n. 126, that the baptism of infants is not to be delayed at all.
177 Suppl., q. 6, a. 5.
135. Three conditions are required in an adult infidel receiving baptism, namely, intention, faith, and penance. The first condition is required for the valid reception of baptism, but the following two conditions are required for its licit reception.
Therefore, for the valid reception of baptism, intention is required in the adult, which ordinarily must be explicit; an implicit intention,178 however, suffices if the infidel to be baptized is dying and deprived of his senses. The minister of baptism must inquire concerning the existence of a true intention in the recipient and procure moral certitude for himself. Thus at least if the baptism of an adult who is outside danger of death is in question. But if the adult infidel is dying, he can be baptized under condition, provided that some probability concerning his true intention is had.179 For the sacraments are for men, and in order to save a dying man it is lawful to baptize him under condition, although he is doubtfully disposed. Nevertheless, it is not lawful to presume the due intention of receiving baptism in a pagan deprived of his senses. Hence the Holy Office established on March 30, 1898, that baptism should be administered to dying Muslims deprived of their senses only "if they previously gave signs of wishing to be baptized." Therefore, it does not seem sufficient that they previously led a good life if they nevertheless showed not even some inclination toward the Christian religion. The contrary opinion, which asserts: "There seems to be no dying person deprived of his senses, whether in a Christian region or an infidel region, who, scandal being excluded, cannot be baptized under condition," is difficult to reconcile with the response of the Holy Office just cited and with the Code of Canon Law, c. 754, § 3.
178 Cf. above, n. 87.
179 Cf. Code of Canon Law, c. 752.
136. For the licit reception of baptism, moreover, there are required, as was said:
a) Faith, that is, knowledge of at least four truths of faith, namely, that God exists, that God rewards, that God is incarnate, and that God is triune in Persons. Hence on January 25, 1703, the Holy Office decreed that a missionary is not to baptize a dying infidel who is not altogether incapable unless he has first explained to him the mysteries of faith which are necessary by a necessity of means, especially the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation.180 The reason is that the Savior said: "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved."181
b) Penance, that is, at least attrition, according to the admonition of the Apostles: "Do penance, and let every one of you be baptized."182 The reason is that no personal sin is remitted unless the man first detests it. But an adult pagan always has personal sins unless God has miraculously preserved him. Nevertheless, there is no need of confession, because all previous sins are remitted through baptism itself. "If, however, any of those to be baptized wished from their devotion to confess their sins, their confession should be heard, not in order that satisfaction be imposed upon them, but so that spiritual instruction for life against their habitual sins might be delivered to them."183 An infidel who refuses to abandon some evil custom is to be barred from baptism. Therefore Alexander VII184 already established that henceforth no one should be admitted to baptism who had not entirely put off the old man and pagan morals. The Holy Office forbids the baptism of a pagan who has not cast his concubines out of his house,185 or of one who has the custom of going about with his body entirely naked.186 On the other hand, the same Holy Office permits girls who are to be sold and betrothed to pagans and polygamists to be baptized, provided that they firmly resolve not to sin and rather to die than to be defiled.187
180 Collect. de Prop. Fide, n. 254; cf. also Holy Office, March 30, 1898.
181 Mark 16:16.
182 Acts 2:38.
183 S. theol. 3, q. 68, a. 6.
184 January 18, 1658 (Collect. de Prop. Fide, n. 129).
185 May 10, 1703 (ibid., n. 256).
186 June 4, 1851 (ibid., n. 1061).
187 September 14, 1892 (ibid., n. 1813).
137. 2. Adult heretics returning to the bosom of the Church must be baptized under condition if there is doubt concerning the baptism they received. Certainly, the Church acknowledges the validity of baptism conferred by heretics, provided that the essential conditions of matter, form, and intention were observed. Therefore, she has always reproved the custom of rebaptizing indiscriminately all who return from heresy. "But in the conversion of heretics, from whatever place or from whatever sect they have come, inquiry is to be made concerning the validity of the baptism received in heresy. Therefore, an examination having been instituted in individual cases, if it has been discovered that [baptism] was either null or conferred invalidly, they are to be baptized absolutely. But if, according to the circumstances of times and places, after the investigation has been performed, nothing is discovered either for validity or invalidity, or if a probable doubt concerning the validity of the baptism still remains, then they are to be baptized secretly under condition. Finally, if it is established that it was valid, they are to be received only to abjuration and profession of faith."188 Since baptism is so necessary a sacrament, and since a defect of faith is so widespread among heretical ministers, who consequently do not take much care concerning the correct application of the form to the matter and concerning forming the intention of doing what the Church does, it will often be better and safer to baptize conditionally those who return from heresy.189 Before such heretics are baptized under condition, however, they are bound not only sufficiently to know the truths of faith and to elicit attrition or contrition concerning sins committed, but they must also confess all the sins of their past life.
An adult heretic who is dying and deprived of his senses seems able to be baptized under condition, provided that every scandal is avoided. For baptism received by him in heresy in present times is truly doubtful, as is evident from what was said above. Moreover, it is deservedly presumed that he, as a Christian by desire, now has the intention of receiving valid baptism, which is so necessary a means of salvation.
Admonition. "It is becoming that both the priest who is about to baptize adults and the adults themselves, if they are well, should be fasting. Unless grave and urgent causes prevent it, the baptized adult should immediately assist at the sacrifice of the Mass and receive Holy Communion."190
188 Holy Office, November 20, 1878 (Collect. de Prop. Fide, n. 1504).
189 Instruction of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, July 26, 1845. Cf. also above, n. 105.
190 Code of Canon Law, c. 753.
138. Scholion. On the confession of a new convert who is baptized under condition. There are certain theologians, among whom are Bucceroni,191 D'Annibale, Génicot, and Cappello, who think that a heretic who, because of a doubtfully received baptism, is baptized again under condition is not bound to the confession of sins. For if the first baptism was actually invalid, then confession and absolution likewise are altogether invalid, since they cannot extend to sins committed before valid baptism. Therefore, a priest baptizing such a heretic under condition and also absolving him acts, as it were, illogically; for he supposes the first baptism to be invalid, and for that reason baptizes again; but at the same time he supposes the same baptism to be valid, and consequently absolves from sins committed after that baptism. Therefore, in every event he administers one or the other sacrament invalidly. For if the first baptism was valid, the second is invalid; but if the first baptism was invalid, the sacramental absolution is invalid.
Nevertheless, the contrary practice is altogether to be observed. For the Holy Office decreed both in the year 1715 and on December 17, 1868, that confession is to be required from new converts.192 The Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith established the same on July 12, 1869, saying at the same time that the Decree of the Holy Office constitutes a universal law and that it is not lawful to teach the contrary opinion.193 The reason why the Holy Office prescribes confession and conditional absolution after the conditional baptism of a new convert is greater security. Certainly, either the baptism or the absolution is rendered ineffective in this case, but the remission of sins is obtained more securely; nor is irreverence offered to the sacraments, because with the best intention they are administered under condition in a case in which sufficient certitude cannot be had.
For the sake of uniformity, the following manner and order of proceeding in the reception of new converts was assigned by the Holy Office for North America on July 20, 1859:194 1. abjuration of heresy and profession of faith; 2. conditional baptism; 3. confession with conditional absolution. The same order is prescribed in the Cologne Ritual195 and seems very simple and commendable everywhere in the world. Another, somewhat more complicated order is admitted by the Holy Office in 1875, namely: 1. confession; 2. conditional baptism; 3. resumption of the confession in its chief points and conditional absolution.
191 Anal. eccl. V, 230; *Instit. Theol. mor.*⁶, de poen., n. 672.
192 Collect. de Prop. Fide, nn. 286 and 1338.
193 Collect. de Prop. Fide, n. 1338, note. Notwithstanding these decisions, certain authors, for example, Bucceroni, Génicot, Cornelisse, Arregui, and Ojetti, think that the contrary opinion is probable. Thus it is stated in Génicot, Theol. mor. instit. II, n. 259: "Nevertheless, with Ballerini-Palmieri (Opus theol. I, n. 28), D'Annibale (Summula Theol. mor. III, n. 301, note 3), and Bucceroni (De poenit., n. 12), we judge that the opinion of many of the older authors, for example, Lacroix, De consc., l. 6, P. 1, n. 223, who deny this obligation [of confession], remains probable whenever a probable doubt concerning the conferral or validity of baptism remains. For it is supported by a valid reason: in this hypothesis the obligation of confessing sins probably remitted through the conditional baptism just received is uncertain." It must be admitted that this opinion is a logical application of probabilism; but that it cannot be reduced to practice follows from the response of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith issued on July 12, 1869, and afterward published in 1899. These are the words: "In the Letter of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith of July 12, 1869, to the Archbishop of Quebec, these things are contained concerning the matter: As regards the doubt proposed by Your Excellency touching the sacramental confession to be required from new converts, it must be observed that the response of the past year, although given only at the request of the bishops of England, contains a universal law, and therefore binds not only in England but also in other regions. Hence it is evident that it can in no way be permitted that an opinion contrary to the aforesaid decision be taught." Cf. Lehmkuhl, Theol. mor. II, nn. 424 sqq.
194 Collect. de Prop. Fide, n. 1178.
195 1900, tit. 2, c. 2, n. 5.