Article I. On the Matter, Both Remote and Proximate, of Baptism

I say 1st. The valid remote matter of Baptism is only true and natural water; but the licit matter, outside the case of necessity, is only the same water, yet not turbid or foul, and moreover in solemn baptism water blessed for this must be employed. Cf. Can. 757, § 1. The first is clear from the Council of Trent, sess. 7, can. 2, de Baptismo, where these things are had: "If anyone shall have said that true and natural water is not of the necessity of Baptism, and therefore shall have twisted to some metaphor the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: 'Unless someone has been reborn from water and the Holy Spirit,' let him be anathema." But the other is clear from the Roman Ritual and the unanimous consent of theologians. - I said outside the case of necessity, because in danger of death any matter whatever, provided that it is not certainly invalid, can and must be employed under this condition: If this matter is sufficient. - But if he who was baptized with such matter has survived, when an abundance of certainly valid matter is had, he must be baptized again under this condition: If you are not baptized, I baptize you, etc. - But just as, according to St. Alphonsus, even a slight probability concerning the validity of the matter suffices for baptizing under the first condition, so also a slight probability concerning its invalidity suffices for rebaptizing under the other condition. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 102; and Hom. Ap., n. 8.

I say 2nd. The proximate matter of Baptism is washing, which can be done in three ways, namely by immersion, sprinkling, and pouring, according to the practice of the different Churches, so that by the moral judgment of men the baptized person is judged to have been washed. This is clear from the words of the form and the perpetual practice of the Church.

I say 3rd. Although baptism can be conferred validly either by pouring, or by immersion, or by sprinkling, nevertheless the first or second manner, or one mixed from both, which is more in use, is to be retained, according to the approved ritual books of the different Churches (Can. 758); so that with a triple washing the head of the one to be baptized is poured over, or he is immersed in the manner of a cross at one and the same time at which the words are pronounced, and the same one is applying the water and pronouncing the words. - Cf. Roman Ritual, Tit. II, c. 1, n. 10.

Question 1. What is the rule for knowing true and natural water?

Resp. The best rule of all is to have recourse to the common use and estimation of God-fearing men, leaving aside those things which are discussed by naturalists. Hence:

1st. Valid matter is: 1st. water of springs, wells, rivers, the sea, ponds, marshes, lakes; 2nd. water dissolved from ice, snow, or hail, because it preserves the same substance, although it is accidentally changed as to color, taste, or odor; 3rd. sulfurous or mineral water, water collected from vapor, dew, or flowing in rainy weather from a wall, leaves, etc.; 4th. turbid water, mixed with another substance, provided that water is truly and certainly the predominant matter.

2nd. Invalid matter is: 1st. milk, blood, tears, sweat, saliva, spittle, urine; 2nd. wine, oil, beer, thick juice from fat, etc.; 3rd. mud, ink; 4th. snow or ice not yet dissolved, because in this state it is not natural water, although some doubt concerning this, for ice is dissolved by contact, and thus some washing can be had.

3rd. Doubtful matter is: 1st. very thin broth, lye, thin beer, water from dissolved salt; 2nd. moisture flowing from a vine and other plants. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 103 and seq. - Cretoni, vol. 2, p. 134. - Lehmkuhl, nn. 58 and seq.

Question 2. What must be done in the case in which consecrated water, which is preserved in the baptismal font, appears diminished and foul?

Resp. It must be noted first of all that baptismal water often appears turbid and foul on account of chrism which perhaps has been mixed into it in too great a quantity, but in reality it is not so.

§ 2. If blessed water in the baptistery is so diminished that it seems less than sufficient, other non-blessed water is to be mixed in, even repeatedly, yet in lesser quantity.

§ 3. But if it has become corrupt, or has flowed out, or in any way has failed, the parish priest is to pour fresh water into the font, well cleaned and neat, and bless it by the proper rite prescribed in his liturgical books (Can. 757).

Among us the formula approved for our use is to be employed. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 102. - Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, n. 234. - Cretoni, vol. 2, p. 134. - Excerpts from the Roman Ritual, p. 238, edition 1878.

Question 3. Can a child in the womb of the mother be validly baptized?

Resp. Affirmatively, if he is touched by water by means of some instrument, because an infant enclosed in the womb of the mother is already a wayfaring man. But since some doubt concerning the validity of this Baptism, because such an infant, since he cannot properly be said to have been born, cannot be reborn, therefore it would have to be repeated under condition, and a fortiori if the water does not touch the child immediately.

Concerning this matter the new Code establishes these things:

§ 1. No one enclosed in the womb of the mother is to be baptized until there is probable hope that, once duly brought forth, he can be baptized.

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

§ 3. If he has put forth another member, he is to be baptized on it under condition, if danger is imminent; but then, if once born he lives, he is again to be baptized under condition.

§ 5. A fetus baptized in the womb, after birth, must be baptized again under condition (Can. 746).

Several physicians, in a case of necessity, are accustomed to baptize infants especially in the womb of the mother with water mixed with corrosive bichloride of mercury (in English, Bichloride of Mercury). This water is composed by a solution of one part of this mercuric chloride in a thousand parts of water, and the mixture is employed lest the uterus be affected by disease. This use is licit where there is a true danger of disease. Thus from S. C. S. O., 21 Aug. 1901. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 107. - Lehmkuhl, nn. 61 and seq.

Question 4. Is Baptism valid if the water touches only the garments or hair of the one to be baptized?

Resp. If the water touches only the garments, Baptism is certainly invalid; because thus no one would say that a man is washed; but it is more probably valid if the water touches the hair. But in practice the safer part is to be followed. Hence if the one to be baptized has hair, let the priest either part his hair with the fingers of the left hand while he pours water with the right, or baptize him on the forehead. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 107, q. 3.

Question 5. Is Baptism valid when conferred on another part than on the head?

Resp. Affirmatively, more probably, especially if Baptism is conferred on some more principal part, for example, on the breast, shoulders, etc. Nevertheless if necessity has compelled this, afterward, if it can be done, Baptism would have to be repeated under condition. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 107, q. 4.

Question 6. Does one or another drop of water suffice for baptizing?

Resp. Negatively, more probably, especially if the water does not flow, because it cannot be called washing, which is altogether required for Baptism; yet it is doubtful matter, which in a case of necessity would have to be employed. But theologians commonly say that it is certain matter if the one baptizing, by the movement of a wetted finger, were to wash a part of the body. Nevertheless, concerning certain persons baptized after the manner of an anointing on the forehead with the thumb wetted in baptismal water, the Holy Inquisition, 14 Dec. 1898, responded: "Care is to be taken that they be baptized again privately, under condition, with only the matter together with the form being employed, without ceremonies." - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 107, q. 6. - Elbel, n. 16.

Question 7. Is triple washing required for Baptism?

Resp. Certainly it is not required for validity; for a single washing suffices that one be judged truly washed. Thus all with St. Thomas, 3, q. 66, art. 8. But it is required for liceity, and indeed under grave obligation, because it is prescribed in the Roman Ritual, although this prescription seems to be understood only of solemn Baptism.

Question 8. What are the causes on account of which conditional Baptism is customarily conferred?

Resp. "For nearly three causes we have found that it has prevailed by the custom of the Church that a condition be employed in conferring Baptism: when it is prudently doubted whether Baptism previously conferred is valid or not; when necessity compels doubtful matter to be employed; when it is doubted whether the subject is capable of Baptism, as in monstrous births, or as in a difficult birth when it is doubted whether the sacrament can be confected by washing that part which alone can be washed; in one word, according to the custom of the Church, a condition is employed in Baptism when there is place for doubting whether something has been lacking or is lacking which is required for the validity of the sacrament." S. C. d. P. Fide, 17 April 1777.

The conditions required for the licit reception of Baptism must be carefully distinguished from those which are necessary for valid reception. . . . "In doubt whether an adult near death has been sufficiently instructed concerning the mysteries of faith and has sufficiently believed them, and in doubt whether he sincerely repents of his past life, when the necessity of death urges, the sacrament must be ministered to him absolutely without any condition. In doubt whether he truly intends to receive baptism, if after a previous diligent examination there is still doubt concerning this intention, baptism must be conferred under condition, provided that he is capable of baptism." 3 Aug. 1860, Holy Office.