Chapter IV. On the Subject of Baptism

I say. § 1. The subject capable of baptism is every and only wayfaring man, not yet baptized (Can. 745).

Every one indeed, because on account of the universality of original sin, all need to be regenerated; but only, because the sacraments have been instituted for wayfaring men alone, and to them alone the entrance into the Church lies open. Finally I said not yet baptized, because by force of the character which is imprinted in Baptism, this sacrament can be repeated neither licitly nor validly.

§ 2. When there is question of baptism:

1st. By the name of little ones or infants there come, according to the norm of can. 88, § 3, those who have not yet attained the use of reason, and to these are reckoned those without reason from infancy, established in whatever age;

2nd. But adults are judged to be those who enjoy the use of reason; and this is enough that each one, by his own motion of soul, may ask for baptism and be admitted to it (Can. 745).

You Will Resolve. 1st. Infants are validly baptized.

§ 1. Those without reason and the frenzied are not to be baptized, unless they were such from birth or before having attained the use of reason; and then they are to be baptized as infants.

§ 2. But if they have lucid intervals, while they are in possession of their mind, they are to be baptized, if they wish.

§ 3. They are also to be baptized when danger of death is imminent, if, before they became insane, they showed the desire of receiving baptism (Can. 754).

Indeed, when it is not plainly established that they did not ask for Baptism, more safely they can be baptized under condition, because according to many, as was said above, it is enough that someone had the will of receiving all things necessary for salvation.

2nd. If it is doubtful whether an infant lives, he is to be baptized under condition. Care must be taken that all aborted fetuses, at whatever time brought forth, if they certainly live, are baptized absolutely; if doubtfully, under condition (Can. 747); especially since today the opinion commonly received by experts is in force, that the fetus is informed by a soul from the beginning of conception. Wherefore physicians, midwives, and mothers are to be admonished, with prudence however, concerning an obligation of this kind. But this is not to be understood in such a way that Baptism can be given even then when not even the first outlines of human life appear. But concerning the manner of baptizing such a fetus Capellmann hands down these things: "For those who are very little or not sufficiently skilled in these matters, the most useful and most certain counsel will be that they confer baptism by immersion, and indeed in such a way that they break open the membranes in or under the water, and, with these having been broken, immediately pronounce the form of baptism: If you live, I, etc. Therefore take hold of some fold of the membrane with the thumb and index finger of each hand and break it open in such a way that the matter of the ovum flows out, that is, so that the baptismal water washes the whole matter of the ovum. But if it is done thus, the access of the approaching air to the embryo, which some so greatly fear, will also be avoided." Medicina Pastoralis, p. 112, note. Lehmkuhl adds to these things, n. 74: "But so that you may act more safely, while saying the form both immerse the fetus into the water and draw it out from it." - Cf. O'Kane, n. 211. - Ballerini, note (a) p. 160. - Lehmkuhl, n. 74.

Indeed, all recently born infants, although commonly believed dead, are to be baptized without delay under the condition: if you live, unless they are already corrupted and putrefied. For it frequently happens that such infants, seized by asphyxia and apparently dead, in reality live within. This is clear from the fact that these very often, with suitable remedies having been employed, have manifested undoubted signs of life several hours after birth have elapsed. Hence those standing by are bound to provide for their eternal salvation through baptism; physicians are bound to employ every care that newborns may be brought back to life; finally parish priests are bound to instruct the faithful concerning the grave obligation of baptizing them, unless signs of advanced putrefaction appear. - Cf. Gury-Ferreres, n. 249 bis, Scholion. - Eschbach, Disput. Physiol. Theologicae, p. 318. - Antonelli, Medicina Pastoralis, vol. 2, nn. 598 and seq. - But especially Ferreres, La muerte real y la muerte apparente, nn. 23-33. - Amer. Eccl. Rev., vol. 33, p. 273 and seq.

3rd. He is validly baptized whom the Minister thinks to be another; indeed even if it is a female whom he thinks to be male; because he intends to baptize the one present and not another.

4th. Several persons are validly baptized at once with this form: I baptize you, etc., provided that they are washed at the same time. But outside the case of necessity this is illicit.

5th. Monsters and prodigies are always to be baptized at least under condition; but in doubt whether they are one or several human beings, one is to be baptized absolutely, the others under condition¹ (Can. 748).

6th. § 4. If a pregnant mother has died, the fetus extracted by those to whom it pertains, if it certainly lives, is to be baptized absolutely; if doubtfully, under condition (Can. 746).

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1141, n. 102.

Question 1. Whether and when can the children of unbelievers not yet having the use of reason licitly be baptized, against the will of the parents?

Resp. Generally speaking, it is not licit to baptize them, both because the natural right of parents would be violated, and because they would be exposed to the danger of perversion, and consequently injury would be done to the sacrament, and finally because it is repugnant to the practice of the Church. And this is the doctrine of St. Thomas, who, 3, q. 68, art. 10, says: "According to natural right, they (children of this kind) are under the care of the parents as long as they cannot provide for themselves . . . and therefore it would be against natural justice if such children, against the will of the parents, were baptized: just as also if someone having the use of reason were baptized unwillingly. It would also be dangerous to baptize children of unbelievers in such a way, because they would easily return to unbelief on account of natural affection for their parents. And therefore the Church does not have this custom, that the children of unbelievers, against the will of the parents, be baptized."

Yet I said 1st. generally speaking, because it is licit in the following cases: 1st. if they are in danger of death, not any danger whatever, but certain or proximate; 2nd. if, justly or unjustly placed outside the care of the parents, there is no fear that they will return to them; 3rd. if it is already known that they will be perpetually without the use of reason; 4th. if one of the parents consents, or if, the father being dead, the paternal grandfather consents, the mother being opposed. - I said 2nd. it is not licit, because concerning validity there never was or can be any question. - I said 3rd. not yet having the use of reason, for those who certainly have it can, indeed if they ask and are sufficiently instructed, must be baptized, with necessary prudence nevertheless being employed. But if there is doubt concerning the use of reason, then according to St. Alphonsus, Benedict XIV, and others, Baptism must be deferred before the seventh year, until it is established concerning the use of reason. The Code establishes the following:

§ 1. The infant of unbelievers, even against the will of the parents, is licitly baptized when he is in such danger of life that it is prudently foreseen that he will die before he attains the use of reason.

§ 2. Outside danger of death, provided that provision has been made for his Catholic education, he is licitly baptized:

1st. If the parents or tutors, or at least one of them, consent;

2nd. If the parents, that is, father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, or tutors are lacking, or have lost their right over him, or can in no way exercise it (Can. 750).

Question 2. Must the same be said concerning the children of heretics among us?

Resp. Affirmatively. That the Church has the right of compelling heretics to furnish the necessary means of salvation to their children, and therefore that they not only procure valid baptism for them but also permit a suitable education to be given, is a certain matter and admitted by all Catholics. But the present question, which entirely regards fact, is not solved from the admission of that right but only from this: namely, whether that right can be actuated. For where the Church cannot execute a right of this kind, "the same seems to have to be said in that case concerning a heretic and any other unbeliever, if there is the same moral danger." S. C. de P. F., 17 April 1777. Thus the Ecclesiastical law defines the matter:

Concerning the baptism of infants of two heretics or schismatics, or of two Catholics who have fallen into apostasy or heresy or schism, generally the norms established in the preceding canon are to be observed (Can. 751). - Cf. St. Alphonsus, loc. cit. - Kenrick, n. 28. - The cited Instruction in Cretoni. - Amer. Eccl. Rev., vol. 1, p. 185 and seq.

Question 3. What must be done when non-Catholic parents offer their own infants to a priest that they may be baptized by him?

Resp. A distinction must be made; for either they ask for the priestly ministry because they wish the offspring to be educated as Catholic; or they do this only for the sake of opportunity or another temporal advantage, without any hope of future Catholic education. If the first, it is licit to confer Baptism, with safeguards nevertheless being employed for averting non-Catholic instruction; if the other, we think it is not licit on account of the danger of perversion. - I recently said without any hope of future Catholic education; for hope must be so much the principle of the solution of all similar cases that as often as it is prudently judged to be present, so often Baptism can be given. Wherefore the Congregation of the Holy Office thus responded for the Diocese of Bardstown (today Louisville) on 13 Sept. 1827: "The Sacred Congregation maturely weighed all the circumstances in which it was set forth that those regions were placed, and the reasons brought forward, and, all things having been weighed, judges that this rule must not be departed from in practice; that infants of heretics offered by their parents are not to be baptized unless a probable hope of their Catholic education shines forth." This same thing was established by the First Provincial Council of Baltimore and solemnly confirmed by the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore. - But if you ask when in fact a probable hope of Catholic education will be present? - the answer is that this depends upon particular circumstances according to the judgment of prudent persons. But it is certainly present when, for example, the parents promise, either both or at least one, that they will embrace the true faith; when they are well disposed concerning it, although they do not wish to embrace it; when they permit a Catholic godmother or godfather to be chosen and to promise specially, etc. - Cf. Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, n. 229. - Kenrick, nn. 29 and 30. - London Tablet, year 1882, Oct. 21, p. 659; Nov. 4, p. 738; and Nov. 25, p. 859. - The Pastor, vol. 4, p. 342.

Question 4. Are exposed infants to be baptized?

Resp. Affirmatively; exposed and found infants, unless, the matter having been diligently investigated, their baptism is established, are to be baptized under condition (Can. 749). - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 135.

Question 5. Must those baptized by heretics be rebaptized?

Resp. It is certain from faith, from Trent, that Baptism conferred by heretics is valid when all things required for the sacrament are employed. But theologians commonly and deservedly think that all children baptized by Protestant ministers are almost always to be rebaptized under condition; because doubt can arise concerning the matter and form applied by such ministers. Wherefore among us, when someone is converted to the true faith, Baptism is almost always repeated, not because the earlier Baptism conferred by heretics is considered invalid in itself, but because, practically speaking, it is almost always rightly judged that something was lacking to it. "As the carelessness and rashness of sects increase day by day," says Kenrick, "the custom was introduced in England, especially from the year 1773, of baptizing any converts whatever under condition, unless it were certainly established concerning Baptism previously validly received. The same has obtained among us." - But since this custom or practice rests upon a presumption of error, and presumption must always yield to truth, it follows that priests are often bound to institute an examination and, once the truth is had, cannot repeat Baptism without sacrilege. - I said often and not always, because although, according to the response of the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition given on 20 Nov. 1878, that examination must be instituted "in individual cases," nevertheless it would be useless to pursue it when it has become known that the new convert belonged to some sect, for example, the Quakers, among whom no Baptism is conferred; unless, however, someone should wish to say that in cases of this kind the examination consists in a simple interrogation about the sect to which the new convert belonged. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 137. - Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, n. 240. - Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, n. 122. - Kenrick, n. 43. - Revue des sciences ecclés., 40, p. 145.

Question 6. How in practice is the examination concerning the validity of received Baptism to be instituted?

Resp. The new convert is to be asked:

1st. Concerning the sect to which he belongs. Now we know:

Oriental heretics and Old Catholics are accustomed to administer Baptism accurately, and therefore a presumption favors them.

Socinians and Quakers confer no Baptism at all today.

Baptists baptize only at adult age, but their Baptism is considered doubtful by some on account of the separation which they place between matter and form, because the latter is pronounced by them before the immersion begins.

Congregationalists, Unitarians, and Universalists regard Baptism as something free, and therefore the presumption is that they do not administer it accurately.

Methodists and Presbyterians are accustomed to give Baptism by sprinkling, and therefore it is reasonably doubted whether the water always touched the skin and flowed.

Episcopalians, if not all, at least most, and especially today, judge that Baptism has no true efficacy, but is a bare rite, and consequently a founded fear is had concerning their skill and care in its administration.

2nd. The new convert must also be asked concerning the region in which he received Baptism from a heretical minister, and concerning the time when he received it. For it is clear that the manner of acting of ministers of the same sect is not everywhere the same, nor is Baptism today conferred by them in the same manner and with the same diligence as fifty years ago. - Cf. Revue des sciences ecclés., vol. 40, pp. 147 and seq. - Konings, n. 1264.

Question 7. When must baptism be conferred?

Resp. Infants are to be baptized as soon as possible; and parish priests and preachers are frequently to remind the faithful concerning this grave obligation of theirs (Can. 770). In the old edition the Roman Ritual, Tit. II, cap. I, n. 15, prescribed thus: "It must be urged that baptism be administered as quickly as possible." Holy Office, 11 Jan. 1899. Concerning the inveterate abuse of deferring the Baptism of children "for weeks, for months, indeed even for years," Leo XIII speaks thus on 22 July 1899: "Surely nothing is more unjust than this evil custom, nothing more contrary to ecclesiastical sanctions: since it . . . brings the eternal salvation of so many souls into manifest danger by inexcusable rashness, . . . certainly deprives them within that time of the ineffable charisms of sanctifying grace; . . . we cannot but from our soul disapprove and execrate so detestable a custom, at once impious toward God and toward men . . ." Therefore the custom of deferring Baptism for children even "for weeks" is detestable, impious, than which nothing is more unjust; this certainly cannot but be a grave sin. What the mind of the Church is in this matter is also plain from the question to be answered by all Bishops in the visitation of the Sacred Thresholds: "Whether parents are generally solicitous that those recently born be washed with baptism within a week; whether there are some who defer too long or prohibit baptism from being ministered?" De Rationibus Dioecesanis et Visitatione S. Liminum: S. C. Consist., 31 Dec. 1909. Concerning this matter one must insist in stirring up parents to bring infants as soon as possible that they may be baptized. Certainly to defer it beyond three weeks without cause seems to be grave sin.

Question 8. What must be said concerning the instruction of adults who wish to return to the Church?

Resp. In ordinary cases, and excepting the danger of death, they must be sufficiently instructed concerning the principal mysteries of faith, the Apostles' Creed, the Lord's Prayer, the precepts of the Decalogue and of the Church, the effect of Baptism, and the dispositions necessary for receiving it rightly and holily, the acts of the theological virtues and their motives; they must also be forearmed against the singular dangers to which faith is exposed in their place; they must be taught concerning various grave obligations arising from their past life and their fulfillment; if there have been or are any abuses opposed to the Catholic thing, they must abhor them, or at least exhibit signs of amendment, if any is required. Finally, they are to be exercised and tested for a long time in faith and Christian morals. This time will vary according to the prudence of the parish priest or priest. Nevertheless the time can be restricted when there is question of the elderly or the sick, or of those who have given extraordinary signs of their conversion. Cf. Holy Office, 18 Oct. 1883.

§ 1. An adult is not to be baptized unless knowing and willing and thoroughly instructed; moreover he is to be admonished to grieve for his sins.

§ 2. But in danger of death, if he cannot be instructed more diligently in the principal mysteries of faith, it is enough, for conferring baptism, that he show in some way that he assents to the same and seriously promises that he will observe the commandments of the Christian religion.

§ 3. But if he cannot even ask for baptism, yet either previously or in his present state has manifested in some probable way the intention of receiving it, he is to be baptized under condition; if then he recovers, and doubt concerning the validity of the baptism conferred remains, baptism is again to be conferred under condition (Can. 752).

Or if this alone is known to you, that he has wished to make himself saved, let him be baptized under condition, as not a few theologians, and not of the lowest bench, say; or if among us you come upon a dying person deprived of his senses, concerning whose will here and now you can discover nothing, certainly very many priests would absolve him conditionally; but if the circumstances of your presence persuade you that you are present not without the care of God, I certainly would not dare condemn you, but would rejoice, if, scandal having been removed, you were to baptize such a one under condition; nor would I rebuke you if you did not do it, but would be silent. Cf. by all means the response of the Holy Office, 18 Dec. 1850. Who would not do the same in the same circumstances?

Note: The practice is to be reproved and is altogether illicit of administering baptism under condition to a non-Catholic party who declares that he wishes to remain in heresy, when a doubt concerning the validity of the same sacrament arises. For then this can be done licitly only when the heterodox party shows himself prepared to abjure errors and to return to the bosom of the Catholic Church. Thus Card. Caterini, Secretary of the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition, 13 April 1878.

Cases which will illustrate the practice are brought forward here with Roman responses.

1st. "We likewise baptized," thus the report from the Vicar Apostolic of the Sandwich Islands, "old persons in danger of death and often deprived of their senses, when we believed it was not without reason that divine providence had led us to them; and when otherwise we had certainty that they had renounced idolatry and had not been enemies of truth, although by ignorance they had not embraced it in a well explicit manner." The Holy Office, 11 Dec. 1850, responded: "The old persons concerning whom there is question can licitly be baptized, once it is first established that they are constituted in the proximate and morally certain article of death, and that they have antecedently renounced idolatry."

2nd. The Holy Office responds: that the missionary cannot baptize one not believing explicitly in the Lord Jesus Christ, but is bound to instruct him concerning all those things which are necessary by necessity of means according to the capacity of the one to be baptized:

that the missionary is also bound to intimate all the precepts of positive divine law to adult barbarians baptized or to be baptized:

as regards an adult outside danger of death, speaking in itself, the missionary is bound to explain to him the mystery of the Eucharist, unless such a motive to the contrary urges that delay until after baptism be judged expedient by a prudent missionary. As regards a dying person, he is likewise bound, unless either time is not available, or so great a disturbance of mind is foreseen in him that it could distract him from the reception of Baptism. 10 May 1703.

3rd. "An unbeliever who has given his name to a heretical sect of Protestants has obtained some notion of the mysteries of the Most Holy Trinity, Incarnation, and Redemption; but as regards the Catholic faith he seems to be in good faith, either because he has heard nothing about it or because he does not yet sufficiently discern truth from error, since Christ is announced on both sides. But having come to the article of death, he is not baptized by heretics, since these care very little about this; or if perhaps they baptize, they seem to employ an invalid form; for thus in their books they teach to baptize in the vernacular tongue: 'I baptize you in the name of our Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.'"

It is asked: (a) Can such a one be baptized by a Catholic member of the faithful, or even must he be, when, dying, he cannot be instructed concerning Catholic dogma?

(b) Even if he can be instructed in some way, insofar as he is placed in good faith, can he be baptized without being instructed concerning Catholic dogma, if so great a disturbance of mind is feared that he may be distracted from the reception of baptism, and does good faith excuse?

R. to (a) and (b). Affirmatively, provided that it is certainly established concerning the will of receiving baptism, and provided that the catechumen himself adheres, if time is available, to the Apostles' Creed which is recited before him before the conferral of baptism; and let the instruction of feria IV, 1 Aug. 1860, to the Right Reverend Vicar Apostolic of Tche-Kiang, "Explorata res," be given, with this added, that if the catechumen has been baptized invalidly, he is to be baptized absolutely; but if he has been baptized doubtfully, he is to be baptized under condition. Holy Office, 27 Jan. 1892.

4th. Concerning a dying adult: that it is not licit for a missionary to "confer Baptism if he is morally certain that the sick barbarian has not sufficiently understood, according to the measure of his own capacity, the mysteries of the Christian religion, or does not sufficiently believe them, and from the sole motive of not contradicting promises that he will keep the commandments: but if the missionary prudently believes that the sick barbarian, when he says, I believe and I will do, then in reality sufficiently believes and seriously promises that he will observe, he must be baptized. But if the missionary doubts concerning the aforesaid things, and time is not available for instructing him better, and danger of death is imminent, he must likewise be baptized under condition," the Holy Office responds, 10 May 1703.

5th. Can a savage adult be baptized who in the article of death, either because of brevity of time or because of a defect of ideas and ignorance, not only cannot be instructed concerning the things necessary by necessity of means, but cannot form an act of contrition or attrition for his sins? The Holy Office responded, 18 Sept. 1850: "If he previously gave signs of wishing to be baptized, or in his present state by a nod or in another way has shown the same disposition, that he can be baptized under condition, insofar, however, as the missionary, after all the circumstances of things have been inspected, will have prudently judged thus." Collection, ed. 2, n. 1050; the same response was repeated by the Holy Office, 30 Mar. 1898.

6th. To a dying adult Mohammedan who exists in good faith in his errors, if he still has full advertence, it is not licit to confer Baptism either conditionally or absolutely, by only exhorting him to sorrow and confidence, speaking not at all concerning our mysteries; nor is it licit, whatever advertence he has, by saying nothing to him, since on the one hand it is supposed that contrition is not lacking to him, but on the other it is not prudent to speak with him concerning our mysteries. Finally if he has lost advertence, see the responses of 18 Sept. 1850; 31 Mar. 1898.

7th. Before Baptism is conferred upon an adult, the missionary is bound to explain to him, even though dying, provided that he is not altogether incapable, the mysteries of faith which are necessary by necessity of means, as are especially the mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation; nor does it suffice if the dying person were to promise that, when he recovers from the illness, he will take care to be instructed so that he may reduce into practice whatever shall have been prescribed to him. Collection, 254. Holy Office, 25 Jan. 1703.

8th. A parish priest or missionary called to a sick or dying person, especially one not baptized or a Protestant, whom he certainly knows to belong to the Freemasons and to be in good faith in the aforesaid secret society, cannot "generically speaking according to the decrees already issued, without any admonition as regards leaving the condemned society, baptize or absolve him: but since according to those things which Albitius has, children and the dying do not abjure, if there is question of those near death and materially or in good faith enrolled in sects condemned by the Holy See, and unless it is foreseen that a special admonition will be profitable, it suffices" that in general they be exhorted to subject themselves sincerely to the authority of the Church and to the commands of the Holy See; then they can be baptized and absolved. But scandal is to be repaired in that better manner in which it can be done, even after death. The Holy Office, 8 July 1874.

9th. § 4. He who suffers from lethargy or phrenesis is to be baptized only when awake and willing; but if danger of death is imminent, the prescription of § 3 is to be observed (Can. 754).¹

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1113, n. 61.