Scholion. On the Doubtfully Baptized

I. Those doubtfully baptized or doubtfully validly baptized must be rebaptized under condition whenever, after diligent examination has been instituted, a prudent doubt remains about the conferral and its validity (cf. canon 732, § 2). It is said:

1. After diligent examination has been instituted. The reason is that the examination instituted perhaps will procure sufficient certainty about the value of Baptism, so that, the examination being neglected, it would be rash and injurious to the sacrament to repeat Baptism immediately (St. Alphonsus, VI, 136 and following). Some authors indeed judged that those baptized by a layperson can be rebaptized even when no inquiry has been carried out; indeed there were synods which in such a case simply prescribed repetition. But that this opinion must be rejected is clear from the fact that it can happen that the value of Baptism conferred by a layperson is morally certain. Hence the said synods were afterward corrected, and Benedict XIV teaches that they are to be disapproved.¹

2. Whenever a prudent doubt remains about the conferral and its validity. With respect to proof of Baptism, canon 779 establishes: "To prove Baptism conferred, if prejudice is done to no one, one witness beyond all exception suffices, or the oath of the baptized person himself, if he received Baptism in adult age." But authors dispute what things for the most part are required so that one may be permitted to trust, with moral certainty, the testimony of a layperson concerning Baptism duly conferred. Some judge that it suffices that a physician or midwife, taught the method of baptizing, testifies in the particular case that he or she baptized duly, provided nothing occurs which weakens the testimony.² Others besides require that the physician or midwife of unimpaired reputation has often been found to baptize duly. Others require that the testimony of the layperson be confirmed by at least one witness. But the circumstances must be inspected, which certainly can be such that certainty about the value of Baptism is had, although the layperson has not often been found to have baptized duly, or his testimony is not confirmed by another witness. Nor do I think that this is simply denied by any author.³ Nevertheless midwives should be admonished that they baptize in the presence of one or another witness, who attends to the manner of baptizing, warns the midwife if she errs, and afterward can testify concerning Baptism duly conferred. The same must be applied in many regions to catechists, since very great is the levity of many peoples in asserting even grave matters.

Corollary I. Those who, a long time after Baptism received, begin to doubt whether they were duly baptized by a pastor or by a midwife should put away scruples. It must be judged that he was duly examined at the proper time, if it was necessary. Besides, according to many, one born of Catholic parents and educated among Catholics, although no testimony concerning Baptism exists, is not to be rebaptized. Nevertheless the presumption deduced from these things is today rather often destroyed by a contrary presumption in regions where negligence of parents is not rare, for example by easily deferring Baptism. Therefore if, after inquiry, a prudent doubt remains, Baptism is to be repeated under condition. Moreover, the sole reason that no positive testimony exists is not sufficient for repeating Baptism before ordination.⁴ Nor in the case of a mixed marriage, before the marriage, must the non-Catholic party be baptized under condition because of doubt about Baptism, if that party wishes to remain in heresy.⁵

Corollary II. Exposed and found infants, unless, the matter having been diligently investigated, their Baptism is established, are to be baptized under condition (canon 749). In practice they commonly must be baptized under condition, and this even if a slip is attached by which the conferral of Baptism is signified, unless the person who wrote the slip is both certainly known and held for certainly worthy of trust, or it is proved from another source that Baptism was duly conferred (St. Alphonsus, VI, 135).⁶ Considering the documents cited in the note, per se inquiry must first be made, unless there is danger in delay; in practice, however, in some regions it is not customary to do this. The things which have been said about exposed infants are also to be applied to infants abandoned by vagrant parents, and this even if they have already been born, for example, three or five or more years, unless there is indubitable certainty about Baptism received.

Corollary III. Those baptized by a layperson, for example by a physician or by a midwife, must not rarely be baptized under condition, because, when inquiry has been made, a doubt often remains. Except if a duly instructed, Catholic, sincere person of proven solidity affirms that he or she baptized duly. If the case concerns a non-Catholic person, some doubt will more easily remain; indeed if a hater of religion, for example a Jew, baptized, there can be reason for doubting due intention.

If an infant was baptized by a layperson, let the priest inquire: 1. what form he used; 2. whether the water was natural; onto what part it was poured; whether it touched the skin, or only the hair or the uncleanness of birth; whether it was poured in sufficient quantity, so that it flowed; whether he washed the infant and pronounced the form with sufficient simultaneity.

Corollary IV. Converted heretics commonly must be baptized under condition, because, when examination has been instituted, doubt about the value commonly remains. The Holy Office declared that examination must be instituted.⁷ Inquiry should be made whether the sect to which the newly converted person belonged holds Baptism in great esteem and is accustomed to take great care about the form and matter; whether the little minister is religious, and in what manner he was accustomed to baptize. When the matter has been examined, outside the case of imminent danger of death, the judgment of the Bishop must always be sought; he will judge in particular cases whether some probable doubt concerning validity underlies.

¹ De Synodo dioecesana, book 7, chapter 6, n. 7.

² Benedict XIV, De Synodo dioecesana, book 7, chapter 7, n. 11.

³ The Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide on 8 September 1869 for the East Indies established: "In order that the missionary not be bound to baptize under condition those baptized by a trustworthy catechist, it is required that there be two witnesses who can testify that Baptism was legitimately conferred; excepting, however, certain cases in which, with the individual circumstances weighed, and with attention paid to the skill and probity of the catechist, to whom nevertheless trust is not to be granted too easily, it can happen that no probable doubt at all about the validity of Baptism arises, even if two witnesses were not present."

⁴ Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide, 30 September 1848 (Collectanea, n. 1034).

⁵ Holy Office, 13 April 1878.

⁶ Holy Office, 5 January 1724 (Collectanea, n. 299).

⁷ 20 November 1878 (Collectanea, n. 1504); 21 February 1883 (Collectanea, n. 1590).

II. The order to be observed in reconciling a heretic from the responses of the Holy Office is this:¹

1. If Baptism is conferred absolutely, no abjuration nor absolution is required, because the sacrament of regeneration washes away all things.

2. When Baptism has been judged valid, only the abjuration or profession of faith is received, which is followed by absolution from censures.

3. If Baptism is to be repeated under condition, it is permitted to proceed in a twofold order, namely:

a) Either thus: 1. Abjuration or profession of faith; 2. conditional Baptism; 3. sacramental confession with conditional absolution.

b) Or thus: 1. Abjuration or profession of faith; 2. sacramental confession without absolution; 3. conditional Baptism; 4. a summary repetition of the confession and conditional absolution.

With respect to abjuration, the Profession of Faith which is found at the beginning of the Code suffices; and it "is held juridically performed when it is made before the local Ordinary himself or his delegate and at least two witnesses" (canon 2314, § 2).

¹ 20 July 1859 (Collectanea, n. 1178); 2 December 1874 (Collectanea, n. 1426).