Chapter — Slater, Manual of Moral Theology

Chapter V. Who May be Baptized

1.

Any living human being who has not yet been baptized is capable of receiving this sacrament. If he has the use of reason, an habitual intention at least to receive Baptism is necessary for its validity, though, as we saw above, it is probably sufficient if it be implicitly contained in a wish to do all that God requires, or any similar act of the will. In children who have not attained the use of reason and in imbeciles no intention is required for the reception of Baptism; the intention of the Church supplies for it.

For the lawful reception of this sacrament by adults who have the use of reason all those dispositions are necessary which, as the Council of Trent teaches,1 are required for the justification of the sinner. They must, then, have faith, and believe all those truths which God has revealed and which the Church proposes to our belief. In particular they must know and believe explicitly the being of God, that he rewards and punishes men according to their deserts, the Blessed Trinity, the Incarnation, the Apostles’ Creed, the Decalogue, and the Lord’s Prayer. In other words, they should be properly instructed in the catechism. They should also approach the sacrament with hope, and at least with that kind of sorrow for sin which is called attrition.

1 Sess. vi, c. 6.

p. ii, 83

2.

Catholic parents are bound to see that their children are baptized, and that as soon as can conveniently be done. According to approved theologians, it would be a serious sin if the Baptism of a child were put off for a month without good reason. As Catholic parents are subjects of the Church, and they are bound to obey her laws, no injustice would be done if a child of such parents were baptized without or against their wish. Non-baptized parents are not subject to the Church, and, as St Thomas teaches, it would be against natural justice if an infant of theirs who is in no danger of death were to be baptized without their consent. When a non-baptized child is in danger of death the necessity of providing for its eternal salvation overrides all other private considerations (Can. 750, sec. 1).

When a child comes to the use of reason he becomes his own master in the things of God, and absolutely he may ask for and receive Baptism without the consent of his parents. Still in practice great caution is needed in such a matter. Of course, if the parents agree to allow the child to be brought up a Catholic, and it has Catholic sponsors, the difficulty will cease. But if it is baptized against their will, and remains subject to their control in other respects, the faith of the child will be in constant danger, especially as it can hardly be very firmly established before mature age. Ordinarily, then, children should not be baptized without their parents’ consent until they reach an age when their convictions are firmly rooted and there is every prospect of their perseverance.

p. ii, 83–84

3.

It would be a grave sin knowingly to baptize again one who has already been validly baptized. So that when a child has been baptized by a nurse or midwife by reason of apparent danger of death, inquiry should indeed be made as to the manner of the Baptism, but if the matter and form were rightly applied the Baptism must not be repeated; only the ceremonies must be supplied in the Church. In case of doubt concerning the validity of the former Baptism, it should be repeated conditionally.

When heretics are converted to the Faith, inquiry should be made in every case concerning their Baptism. If it is found either that they were never baptized, or that the Baptism was invalid, they must be baptized again absolutely. If, after inquiry, a prudent doubt remains as to whether they were ever baptized, or as to whether their Baptism was valid, they should be baptized again conditionally, and in secret so as to avoid scandal.

If it is found that their Baptism was valid, they should only abjure their errors, and make a profession of the Catholic faith.

p. ii, 84

4.

An aborted foetus, if it is still living, should be baptized, rupturing the membranes if necessary, and pouring water over it while at the same time pronouncing the form of Baptism (Can. 746).

The Ritual admonishes ministers of the sacrament to be cautious about baptizing monsters. If a monster has not a human shape, but is a mere mass of fleshy growth, it should not be baptized at all. If there are two heads and two bodies, there are two persons, and both should be baptized, separately if there is time, otherwise under a common form. [If it is doubtful whether there are two persons or only one, Baptism should be given absolutely to one, and again conditionally to the other, under the form, “‘ If thou art not baptized, I baptize thee,” and so forth.

The Ritual also prescribes that if a woman dies in pregnancy the foetus should be extracted, and if still living should be baptized. This, of course, supposes that there is a skilled person present who judges that the foetus is still alive, and who is capable of performing the necessary operation.

The question also occurs whether a mother, who is still living but who cannot bring forth her child alive, is bound to undergo a serious operation like Caesarian section in order to insure the eternal welfare of her child by. Baptism. Of course she may not undergo the operation if it would be the immediate cause of her own death. The mother must not be killed even for the salvation of the child. Even if her health and condition are such that in all probability she could stand the operation, yet it is probable that she is under no obligation to submit to it. The child can with sufficient certainty be baptized in the womb, and even if the operation were performed, greater certainty that the child would still be alive and capable of Baptism can seldom be obtained. In such circumstances no strict obligation to undergo a serious operation can be imposed on the mother.

p. ii, 84–85