Baptism of children; delay

66. On the infants of Catholics. 1. Infants of Christian parents are to be brought to the church as soon as possible, that they may be baptized.¹

Not only because of danger of death, which in infants is much greater than in adults, but also because of the universal custom prevailing in the Church, which has already for a long time obtained the force of law, parents are bound to take care that the baptism of their infants is not delayed too much, unless some grave cause excuses.

2. There exists no universal law which more accurately determines the time beyond which the baptism of little children cannot be deferred without sin. But in most places there exists a particular law prescribing that the baptism of infants not be deferred beyond one or two weeks. To defer baptism notably beyond the time prescribed by the bishop without just cause is a grave sin. But where a particular law does not bind, delay of baptism, even notable delay, does not seem to be charged as a grave sin, provided there is a serious will of not neglecting baptism and no danger of death is truly to be feared.²

The rigorists hold that a grave sin is committed if baptism is deferred beyond five or six days, indeed even if it is deferred beyond one or two days. Others judge the delay to be grave if baptism is deferred beyond a month without cause.³

¹ Roman Ritual, tit. 2, c. 1, n. 15. Cn. 770 established this obligation and calls it grave.

² Ballerini-Palmieri IV, 745; Genicot, Theol. mor. inst., II, 146.

³ Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 118.

67. On the infants of heretics. 1. It is certain that the Church has the right of baptizing the children of heretics and of preventing them from being imbued with the errors of their parents, because heretics can be compelled by the Church, whose subjects they are, to observe the divine law. Nevertheless the Church does not use her right, because she cannot prevent the children of heretics from being educated in heresy.

2. Therefore, if they are not in danger of death or in such a crisis of life that they are prudently foreseen to be going to die before the use of reason, it is not licit to baptize the children of heretics unless there is some probable hope that afterward they will be educated in the true faith.¹

a. If heretical or schismatic spouses, lacking their own minister, present their own infant to a pastor or another Catholic priest to be baptized, declaring that by this they do not wish to be bound to educate him in the Catholic religion, the pastor cannot baptize him in order meanwhile to place in safety the eternal salvation of the innocent little infant, prescinding from what could happen in the future when he comes to the age of discretion, unless he is in danger of death.² This is not then licit even when he foresees that the infant must be perpetually without baptism.

b. If Catholic parents who now are of no religious confession (Konfessionslose), or parents of whom one party is apostate and the other Jewish, ask baptism for their children, the parents are indeed to be warned and exhorted concerning the education of their offspring in the Catholic religion; nevertheless the children can and ought to be baptized, unless an extraordinary and almost certain danger of perversion is foreseen. Since judgment concerning the gravity of the danger is not without serious difficulty, let the pastor not decide the matter without consulting the Ordinary.³

c. It is licit for a pastor to baptize a child with one Catholic parent consenting, even if he certainly knows that the other will afterward take care that the infant be baptized by a heretical minister; but the Catholic spouse is bound to inform the heretical spouse that the child has already been legitimately baptized.⁴ For this disposition of the Catholic party supplies a sufficiently founded hope of future Catholic education.

¹ Holy Office, 26 Aug. 1885. Cn. 750, 751.

² Holy Office, 26 Aug. 1885.

³ Cf. E. Muller III, tr. 2, section 72; Bucceroni, Casus consc.^5, n. 113, 3.

⁴ S. C. de Prop. Fid., 20 Nov. 1672.

68. On the infants of unbelievers. 1. Of itself it is not licit to baptize the children of unbelievers without the knowledge or against the will of the parents; for if the baptized children are taken away from the parents, the natural right of the parents is violated; but if they are left under the power of the parents, injury is done to the sacrament on account of the certain danger of defection.¹ With respect to the children of Hebrews there exists, moreover, a special prohibition of the Church, namely that they not be baptized against the will of the parents.²

Where it is a question of baptizing the children of unbelievers, the Church, which does not have power over them, chiefly attends to two things: first, that those who receive Christian baptism also be educated and instructed in the true religion and live in Catholic fashion; then, that the natural rights of the parents not be harmed. For there belongs to parents the natural right and duty of caring for their children until they use reason.

2. Nevertheless, sometimes the infants of unbelievers can, indeed must, be baptized without the knowledge or against the will of the parents: a. if they are in danger of death; b. if they have been placed outside the power of their parents or guardians, so that they can be educated as Catholics.

a. If they are in certain and proximate danger of death, they must be baptized from the precept of charity, if this can be done when occasion is given without stirring up the hatred of unbelievers against the Christian religion. If they are in probable danger of death, they can licitly be baptized, even if death is still rather distant.³ But the danger of death must be proper to the one who is baptized; therefore, when a plague is raging, it is not licit to baptize infants indiscriminately, even if the greater part of them are foreseen to be going to die.⁴

b. If baptism, whether for a little child or for an adult, whether in danger of death or outside it, cannot be conferred without stirring up the hatred and persecutions of unbelievers against the Christian religion, baptism can be deferred or entirely omitted, because the common good of the Christian community must be preferred to a private good, however great.

Note. If a non-Catholic child has been baptized without the knowledge or against the will of the parents, whether licitly or illicitly, then a child of unbelievers and of Hebrews must indeed be withdrawn from the parents on account of the proximate danger of perversion; but a child of heretics can be left in the power of the parents if they themselves do not deny faith in Christ. Since the civil power now prevents a child baptized in danger of death from being withdrawn from unbelieving or Hebrew parents if he recovers, that baptism itself must be diligently observed as far as possible, lest perhaps afterward he be baptized again.

¹ Cf. St. Thomas III, q. 68, a. 10; Benedict XIV, constitution Postremo mense, 28 Feb. 1747.

² Constitution of Julius III and S. C. C., 16 July 1639. Cf. Benedict XIV, constitution Postremo mense (28 Feb. 1747), who in n. 27 cites the constitution of Julius III and several responses of S. C. C. on this question.

³ Holy Office, 18 July 1894.

⁴ Cf. Instruction of S. C. de Prop. Fide, 17 Aug. 1777.

69. 3. With unbelieving parents consenting, it is not licit to baptize their children if the danger of future perversion is special and extraordinary; but it is licit if no danger is foreseen except the danger common to all in circumstances of this kind. For in this latter case there is, but in the former there is not, probable hope of perseverance in the faith. But it belongs to the bishop or apostolic prefect to judge whether in a particular case there is a probable hope of Christian education or a certain danger of perversion.

a. In practice there is no difficulty if the unbelieving parents who ask baptism for their child consent to the Catholic education of the child outside the paternal home. Ordinarily, however, the greatest danger of perversion is to be feared when the baptized child must remain under the power of unbelieving parents, both of whom are unbelievers. Nevertheless, even if a child baptized as a Catholic must afterward remain in the paternal home under the power of the parents, a grave danger of perversion is not always immediately to be supposed; but sometimes children of this kind also can be baptized, especially where the future conversion of their parents can reasonably be hoped for, or where at least no special danger of perversion is foreseen.¹

b. Ordinarily it is licit to baptize an infant who has at least a believing mother, although the father is Jewish, unbelieving, or apostate, because almost always the providence of the mother suffices, so that a probable hope of the Catholic education of the infant may be conceived.²

c. It is licit to baptize an infant if one of the parents, with the other unwilling, or the one who uses paternal power in place of the parents (the paternal grandfather, the paternal grandmother), with both parents unwilling, offers the infant to be baptized; because on the one hand those persons participate somewhat in paternal power and their consent in favor of the faith is judged to outweigh the perverse will of the others, and on the other hand this consent supplies some hope of Christian education.³

¹ Cf. Holy Office, 22 July 1840 and 11 Dec. 1850.

² Holy Office, 17 Sept. 1671.

³ Cf. letters of Benedict XIV, Probe te meminisse, 15 Dec. 1751.

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.

Preliminary Note. When Baptism is in question, under the name of little children or infants, according to the norm of canon 88, § 3, come those who have not yet attained the use of reason, and to these are reckoned the insane from infancy, in whatever age they may be constituted¹ (canon 745, § 2, 1).

I. Infants before the use of reason can be baptized validly. This is of faith from the Council of Trent.²

II. Infants must already be baptized before the use of reason. Now:

1. It is clear that this is prescribed under grave obligation and by divine law itself if danger of death is imminent.

2. Outside danger of death, there is the obligation of baptizing them as soon as possible, as is clear from canon 770 in these words: Infants are to be baptized as soon as possible; and pastors and preachers are frequently to remind the faithful of this grave obligation of theirs.

It is disputed how much delay, if the infant is healthy, is to be considered grave. Some say fifteen or more days, others one or another day, others with St. Alphonsus (VI, 118) require a delay which exceeds ten or eleven days; this estimation of the holy Doctor is to some extent confirmed by the Instruction of the Sacred Consistorial Congregation concerning the visitations of bishops.³

¹ Those of seven years are presumed to have the use of reason; those not yet seven are presumed not to have the use of reason (canon 88, § 3).

² Session 5, canon 4.

³ N. 148 (A.A.S., vol. II, p. 39).

An infant of non-Catholics, that is, of unbelievers, heretics, schismatics, and Catholics who have fallen into apostasy or heresy or schism, is licitly baptized:

I. When he is in such danger of life that it is prudently foreseen that he will die before he reaches the use of reason (canon 750, § 1), or when "it is very prudently doubted that, from the infirmity by which they are actually affected, they will not live, but will die before the age of discretion."¹

Therefore a probability founded on this, that in some place, for example, half of infants die before the use of reason, does not suffice; nor a probability arising from this, that in some region a contagious disease is raging and there is grave danger that the disease may be transferred to infants.² If it is doubted whether an infant who is in danger of death has reached the use of reason, "let the missionaries try to instruct them in the better way in which it can be done; otherwise let them be baptized conditionally."³

II. When the infant appears perpetually insane;⁴ in this case there can be no discussion of education properly so called (St. Alphonsus, VI, 130).

III. Outside the case of danger of death or insanity, the infant is licitly baptized, provided that his Catholic education is safeguarded: 1. if the parents or tutors, or at least one of them, consents; 2. 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 (canon 750, § 2). It is said:

1. Provided that his Catholic education is safeguarded. Now, considering the responses of the competent Authority,⁵ it suffices that, all things considered, the Catholic education be in some way safeguarded, or that, all things having been seen, a noteworthy hope of Catholic education shines forth. Here, however, note that this kind of hope is more easily present in the case in which either parent is Catholic and the Catholic party consents, than in the case in which each parent is non-Catholic.

2. If the parents... consent; and so even the consent of the mother alone or of a female tutor suffices. And this holds even if it is foreseen that the other parent will afterward see to it that the infant is baptized by a heretical minister.⁶ Now the said consent is required per se if it is a question of an infant of unbelievers. This is clear from the Instruction of Benedict XIV Postremo mense;⁷ the same is taught by the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide.⁸ But the reason seems to be that the Church, by conferring Baptism on the offspring of parents over whom she has no right, places that offspring in such a condition that it can and per se must be separated from the parents. But this seems to involve a violation of right (St. Thomas, II-II, q. 10, a. 12; St. Alphonsus, VI, 132). If the discussion concerns an infant of baptized non-Catholics, consent is not required per se, because the Church has a right over them as her subjects. It is, however, commonly required per accidens, because if it is lacking, hope of Catholic education will commonly be absent. Hence canon 751 declares that, with respect to infants of two heretics or schismatics, or of two Catholics who have fallen into apostasy or heresy or schism, generally the norms established by canon 750 are to be observed.

3. If the parents... have lost their right over him, or can in no way exercise it. The case would occur if the infant had been entrusted to a Catholic, or had been abandoned and received in a Catholic hospital or by a Catholic.⁹ But if the parents have entrusted the infant to a Catholic to be educated, per se he ought not afterward be returned to them, even if they ask for him back and the infant has not yet been baptized; since the prior offering and acceptance ought not afterward be rescinded to the prejudice of the eternal salvation of the one offered (St. Alphonsus, VII, 130).

4. Finally, it is permitted to baptize infants offered by unbelievers if the missionary has a well-founded motive for believing that their parents too will in the future seek Baptism.¹⁰

¹ Holy Office, 18 July 1894 (Collectanea, n. 1877); Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide, 15 February 1781.

² Instruction of the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide, 17 April 1777, reply to VIII (Collectanea, n. 522).

³ Instruction of the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide, 17 April 1777, reply to VIII (Collectanea, n. 522).

⁴ Holy Office, 18 July 1892.

⁵ Instruction of the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide, 17 April 1777 (Collectanea, n. 522).

⁶ Cf. Holy Office, 12 October 1600; 29 November 1672, reply to I (Collectanea, n. 205); Instruction of the Holy Office, 1827; Holy Office, 6 July 1898, reply to IV (Collectanea, n. 2007).

⁷ 28 February 1747.

⁸ Holy Office, 29 November 1672, reply to I (Collectanea, n. 205).

⁹ The cited Instruction of Benedict XIV.

¹⁰ Holy Office, 11 December 1850, reply to IV (Collectanea, n. 1054).

Corollary I. An infant of non-Catholic parents, whether legitimately or illegitimately baptized, per se must be withdrawn from the care of the parents so that he may be educated Catholicly. But in practice the Church will not be able to use her right (St. Alphonsus, VI, 127, 128).

Corollary II. The fact that parents baptized Catholic live so non-Catholicly that there is little hope of Christian education is not a reason for refusing Baptism.¹ The same must be said of infants of Catholics who have given their name to socialism.

Corollary III. If a Catholic mother desires that the infant be baptized Catholicly, but the non-Catholic father wishes him to be baptized after some time by a heretical minister, proceed in this way: If the offspring will soon be baptized by a heretical minister, it is better to wait and afterward baptize the offspring conditionally. If one must wait longer, it is better to baptize the infant Catholicly at once. In the case, per se indeed, the heretical spouse is to be warned about the Baptism conferred; but if grave inconvenience stands in the way of warning, a second Baptism can be permitted. Besides, prudence will sometimes suggest that the Baptism be conferred by someone other than the pastor himself; let a Catholic and trustworthy person be chosen.

¹ Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide, 31 January 1796 (Collectanea, n. 625).

“Concerning children, however, because of the danger of death, which can frequently occur, since no other remedy can aid them except the Sacrament of Baptism, by which they are delivered from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred Baptism is not to be deferred for forty or eighty days, or another time, according to the observance of some; rather, it ought to be conferred as soon as it can conveniently be done, yet in such a manner that, when danger of death is imminent, they are baptized at once without any delay, even by a layman or woman, in the form of the Church, if a priest is lacking, as is more fully contained in the Decree for the Armenians.” Decree for the Jacobites, or Cantate Domino of Blessed Eugene IV.

“The Sacred Congregation most fully approved the custom of this mission concerning Baptism, about which you doubted, namely, that, in the absence of a priest, it is immediately administered by catechists or other approved laymen to infants even enjoying good health; for human life, especially that of infants, is exposed to continual dangers.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 11 February 1804, to the Apostolic Vicar of Cochinchina.

“Concerning the practice established by Your Excellency with regard to the Baptism of infants—to be conferred within ten days at the most, by priests if the opportunity is given, or by a catechist, but not by another person except in a case of necessity—the Most Eminent Fathers judged that the prescriptions of the Synod of Sichuan are altogether to be followed.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 11 September 1841.

From the Synod of Sichuan: “Furthermore, since in these regions there prevails the very unsafe custom that parents place newborn infants with themselves in the same bed, while on the other hand missionaries are able to traverse their districts only once a year, lest infants be in danger of dying without Baptism, as has already happened more than once, suitable men and women, but especially catechists, are to be specially instructed in each Christian community, who shall baptize newborn children even if they are not ill, the priest afterward supplying the ceremonies of Baptism when he shall have arrived; and the parents are to be admonished that they take care to have them washed with saving water as soon as it can conveniently be done. It is very prudent that they be washed within three days; but lest so necessary a Sacrament be delayed too long with danger to salvation, we establish eight days from the infant’s birth and command that it not be deferred beyond this limit.”

“It is to be urged that Baptism be administered as soon as possible; it can then be permitted that a midwife confer it when a danger is positively feared that the child will die during the time of the delay.” Holy Office, 11 January 1899. Cf. M. E., vol. 11, p. 261.

Are infants to be baptized at once? - "It must be noted that they sin gravely who defer baptizing an infant for much time. This is common among all... and in the Ritual it is said: Let the pastor exhort that a sacrament so greatly necessary not be too much deferred for children, with danger to salvation... More commonly and more probably the delay is not grave unless 10 or 11 days are exceeded." L. 118. The Salmanticenses judge that it is not mortal to defer for 15 or even 20 days, even without an urgent cause.

Indeed others with Suarez say that it is not a grave delay if it does not reach a month, although there is no cause; but when a cause stands, if it is not extended to two months. The reason indeed for not notably deferring baptism is "the danger of death, which must always be feared in children." St. Thomas 3 p., q. 68, a. 3 ad 1. - Trent sess. 5, Decree on Original Sin; sess. 7, c. 12; Roman Ritual tit. 2, cap. 1, n. 27; cap. 3, n. 4-6; Roman Catechism 34; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 88, a. 3, 9; E. M.

Are children rightly baptized against the will of their parents? - It is certain 1. that such baptism is valid; 2. that this baptism is also licit if it concerns the children of Catholics, since they are subject to the laws of the Church. D. Gousset does not easily concede this if impious parents have altogether refused. Yet Gousset himself observes that the contrary is common. For this can be done cautiously without any danger; and since the child still lives among Catholics, perversion is not so greatly to be feared. But it is not expedient to resolve this question practically without the counsel of the bishop.

If it concerns the children of unbelievers, Scotus affirms that they are licitly baptized against the will of the parents; but the more common opinion, and the one to be held in practice, which the Thomists defend, teaches that, generally speaking, the children of unbelievers are baptized illicitly if their parents are or are judged likely to be opposed, although otherwise they are civilly subject to Christian Princes. For those baptized are either taken away from their parents, and injury is done to them; for it is of natural law that the child, before he has the use of reason, is under the care of the father; or they are left with those same parents, and injury is done to the sacrament, since it is exposed to irreverence. Whence it is also not licit to baptize them, although they are spontaneously offered by each parent, whenever those same infants must be left under the power and education of those same unbelieving parents. This is confirmed from the practice of the Church and from Benedict XIV both in Instr. Postremo mense, Feb. 28, 1747, and in Epist. Probe te. Indeed, as regards the children of Hebrews, there is the Constitution of Julius III, who imposed upon delinquents suspension and a penalty of one thousand ducats.

Generally speaking. For they will also be licitly baptized: 1. If the parents are our slaves; for then they are rather of our law than of theirs. 2. If either parent asks, because his or her just will is to be preferred to the unjust will of the other in favor of faith and of the offspring; or if, the father being dead, the paternal grandfather consents, even with the mother resisting, since paternal power is with him, or at least the paternal grandmother, although wholly lacking paternal power, namely in favor of faith. But there is need that a reasonable hope be present that the infant will afterward be educated in a Christian manner. Benedict XIV, Instr. Postremo § 16, 28; Epist. Probe te § 17, 18. 3. If the infant is in danger of death, provided this is done without scandal, and therefore no greater hatred of unbelievers against the Christian religion and savagery against Christians is stirred up; for then provision is made for the good of the offspring, without injury being done to anyone, since by death he is to be withdrawn from all power of men. Provided this is done without scandal, wherefore no force is to be used, and nothing is to be done which brings grave offense of the people. For no one is bound to disturb public order, nor can he excite scandal in order to aid an infant. 4. If, already master of his own reason, he seeks baptism of himself; because in the matter of Religion he is already of his own law, provided it cannot prudently be doubted lest afterward he fall away from the Catholic Religion. Benedict XIV, Const. Postremo § 22. But in doubt concerning the use of reason, the age of seven years suffices. But generally favor is to be shown rather to the child than to the father. For the father is dealing with avoiding a light detriment, namely of paternal power for a moderate time; but the child is dealing with avoiding a most grave detriment, namely eternal damnation. Lugo Resp. Mor. l. 1, d. 4, 6, 5. 5. If the child has been placed outside the care of the parents, as if he had been exposed; for then they would be judged to have renounced their right. Likewise if the parents have been captured in war; for by the right of war captives belong to the victor. 6. If the father offers the child and afterward changes his mind; or if the parents abandon the child, although afterward they reclaim him; for the Church would already have acquired a right. - Benedict XIV, Const. Inter omnigenas, Feb. 2, 1744; Instr. Postremo; Collection of S. C. de P. F. 540 ff.

Yet if the offspring has already been illicitly baptized against the will of the parents, then Benedict XIV in the cited Instr. Postremo prohibits returning him to the parents, because of the certain danger of perversion of the offspring and profanation of the sacrament.

The Church has the right of baptizing infants, the children of heretics, even against the will of their parents, from whom also she can "tear them away, so that they may be educated as Catholics." L. 127. Yet the Church is not accustomed to use this right because of graver inconveniences. But where the Church cannot carry out a right of this kind, "the same seems to have to be said in that case concerning a heretic and any other unbeliever, if the same moral danger is present," lest they afterward be educated as Catholics. S. C. de P. F., Apr. 17, 1727; Holy Office, Jan. 23, 1763. - La Croix 297 ff.; L. 128-132; Lugo Resp. Mor. l. 1, d. 4; St. Thomas 2.2, q. 10, a. 12; 3 p., q. 68, a. 10; Quodl. 2, a. 7; A. S. S. v. 25, p. 247 ff.; E. M.

1. Landulphus, converted from infidelity to the Christian faith, confesses that he had indeed wished to receive baptism, but solely so that he might be aided by Christians, because he was very poor, not so that he might truly embrace the Christian faith. And indeed Landulphus, after receiving baptism, was still for many years given over to pagan rites. He is now converted to a better way, and the uncertain missionary asks whether he is to be rebaptized.

R. Negatively. Three dispositions are required in an adult for receiving baptism duly, namely faith, penitence, and the intention of receiving it. But faith and penitence are required in an adult so that he may receive the sacrament licitly and may obtain the fruit of the sacrament. Intention, however, is necessary for obtaining it validly. Therefore, for the validity of baptism, the will of receiving baptism itself suffices, or of receiving what Christians receive, even under a certain confused aspect, even if for a private reason he believes that this whole thing is of no value or moment. Wherefore the will of the effect of baptism is by no means required. But Landulphus truly willed to receive baptism, although afterward he did not will to live according to the faith of baptism. Therefore he validly received baptism, and consequently is not to be rebaptized. Nor indeed did that motive, that he might be aided by the missionaries in his temporal necessity, impelling him to baptism, impede the true will of receiving baptism, since, on the contrary, that motive impelled him to receive baptism. And if fear, impelling one to baptism, does not take away the will of baptism, and the baptism is valid, as is gathered from C. Maiores 3. de Baptismo, much more is baptism valid in the Case, since it is received altogether voluntarily by Landulphus. Cf. Suarez de Sacr. q. 68. d. 24. s. 2., Instr. S. O. 6. Jun. 1860. Collectan. S. C. de P. F. n. 589., I. M. 460.

2. In a certain city, altogether Catholic, Peter and Petronilla, Christians and Catholics, but living altogether badly, neglect to make efforts that their offspring be baptized. Their maidservant Rosina, a fervent Catholic, and one who has already lived in this house for many years, warns Antoninus the parish priest of this. After the matter has been maturely weighed, and with the approval of the Ordinary having been obtained, the parish priest secretly baptizes the offspring, with the parents not knowing; and meanwhile he commends her to the same maidservant.

Quaer. Whether the parish priest acted well?

R. Since the case occurs in a region altogether Catholic, and consequently there is hope that that offspring will afterward be instructed in the true faith, and no scandal follows, the parish priest acts licitly. For the Church has full right over such offspring, and no reason is present why she should not use it for the greatest good of such offspring. Certainly those who live among Catholics in a Catholic city can easily be instructed in the Catholic religion, since almost everywhere they have before their eyes those things which pertain to the Catholic religion, and they often hear others speak and discourse about it, as, for example, at Rome, Naples, and other similar cities. But if the parents are negligent, there are not lacking, in cities of this kind, other persons, whether blood relatives or even strangers, such as male servants and maidservants, as in the Case, who can supply for the parents' sloth, and employ diligent care so that, gradually and without being noticed, they may imbue infants with the true doctrine of the Catholic faith, and may also stir them up to the very practice of the Catholic religion. And often the good disposition of the boys themselves also helps toward this, and the assisting grace of God is always at hand. Wherefore, since such seems to have been the Case of Antoninus the parish priest, his zeal seems worthy of praise; and, since meanwhile he commended that offspring to the fervent maidservant, this surely proves that he will also watch in the future for the right and Catholic instruction of that offspring. And this resolution can be abundantly confirmed from the resolution of the following case. I. M. 464.

3. "Whether it is expedient, outside the case of death, to baptize the infants of the faithful, when, account being taken of the tepidity or of another evil manner of acting of the same parents, no probable hope shines forth that the said infants will afterward be instructed in the Christian religion?

R. Let the response of the Holy Office, 17. Sept. 1671., be given, and let it be written according to the Instruction: namely, since by this Sacred Congregation the opinion of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office had been requested: Whether infants of Turks can be baptized, when the father is a defector from the Christian religion, the mother is Christian, and although both ask baptism for the son, nevertheless there is doubt whether the father may wish to educate him in Mohammedan superstition? To this doubt, when the response had gone forth from the Holy Office: In the proposed case they ought to be baptized, from here the beginning must be taken of the prescribed Instruction to be drawn up, by which, from the given response, the way may be prepared for a certain fuller explanation of the proposed doubt.

Therefore it must be noted beforehand that one judgment is to be given concerning the case in which the danger of perversion of the infant to be baptized is so pressing that it is almost certain that afterward no help can be brought to him in any way, as when the infant is thereafter to remain in the power of infidel parents; another judgment is to be given concerning the case in which there is indeed some doubt, or even a just cause, for fearing perversion, yet in such a way that not every reason of suitable aid is lacking by which provision can opportunely be made for the danger which is foreseen. Certainly in the former case, in which there is discerned that kind of danger which is usually called proximate, that baptism cannot be conferred on the infant unless his life is in danger is clearly established from another response of the Holy Office, 3. March 1703., by which it was decreed: It is not lawful to confer baptism on infants who are children of infidels and are to remain in their power, excepting children who, being most gravely ill, are in danger of life. But as regards the latter case, it is immediately added: But it is lawful, if they are indeed children of barbarians, but already of the soldiers of Christ, provided that, when they have grown up, they are instructed concerning the precepts and mysteries of holy Religion, either by apostolic men dwelling there or by the parents themselves.

Thus, moreover, these two responses of the Holy Office which have been brought forward agree and consent with one another, so that one receives mutual light from the other. For in the first response given, although the father's defection from the Christian religion would bring no empty suspicion that he would wish to educate his son in the Mohammedan impiety which he had embraced, nevertheless, since the mother professed the Christian religion, and the father himself did not resist, in such a factual situation, which indeed carried before itself some doubt, but not likewise a sufficiently explored proximate danger of future perversion, the Sacred Congregation rightly judged that there was not sufficient cause why, on account of an uncertain event, it should repel the born infant from the benefit of obtaining the grace of baptism.

These things being duly weighed and known, the explanation of the doubt proposed by the Reverend Vicar Apostolic comes forth, as it were of its own accord. For whatever that may be which is called the tepidity of the parents, or sluggishness and sloth in every practice of religion, or the stubbornness of another of the same parents in an evil manner of acting, there is surely no greater destruction threatening the education of the offspring from this than from an open defection of the father from Christian rites to Mohammedan impiety. On the other hand, from the practice of religion flourishing in those Apostolic Missions, there are supplied far more aids than from the Christian profession of one mother dwelling among Turks, by which, especially through the pious and diligent industry of the Pastors, the indolence of the parents can be supplied. And first of all, because of the supreme zeal with which the Apostolic Vicars and their ministers stand unanimous in those regions, laboring together in the same spirit for the Gospel of the Son of God, it can scarcely happen that, when they approach to celebrate holy baptism, there would be lacking the means of procuring such sponsors, by whom, when the reborn infants have begun to grow up, they may be taught concerning the precepts and mysteries of the Christian religion. But if it happens that afterward the miserable defection of many from the religion they received is to be lamented, partly, as is explained, from fear of persecutions, partly because of confession denied on account of scandals, who nevertheless now are said to be converted rather easily; partly because several are transferred into more remote regions, where priests rarely go by whom they may be visited; partly because of the voluntary cohabitation of very many with gentiles, by whom they are gradually depraved; partly finally because several, compelled to restitution of things badly acquired, prefer to desert faith rather than money: surely this entirely voluntary subsequent depravity is not of such force that one must distrust concerning the little ones who are offered individually for baptism, and not rather piously hope that those faithful, with God having mercy, will remain in that vocation to which they have been called by baptism through the kindness of the very God who has mercy. Indeed, the fact that it has also been noted that those who depart because the sacraments have been denied are converted rather easily plainly shows how much it has profited them to be baptized; for if they had not previously been baptized, perhaps they would have lain miserably forever in the darkness of idolatry. By this the pious confidence of the Pastors in the Lord ought to be increased all the more, that labor undertaken by them will not be empty, the more zealously they apply themselves to the conversion of others of every kind, preaching the word, being urgent in season and out of season, reproving, entreating, rebuking in all patience and doctrine.

Now, that we may return more nearly to the proposed doubt, from the decree given by order of the Sacred Congregation, it must be concluded with stronger reason that the consideration of the tepidity of faithful parents, or of another evil manner of acting of the same, does not stand in the way of their infants being able and obliged to be duly baptized, especially when the parents themselves request it, as in the proposed Case." S. C. de P. F. 31. Jan. 1796.

4. What must be done by a missionary who imprudently and inconsiderately baptized all the infants of his Mission whose fathers and mothers were still infidels.

R. He is bound, by himself or through others, as far as can be done, to instruct the children of infidels imprudently and inconsiderately baptized, when they have arrived at the use of reason, with the other missionaries also being warned, indeed even the bishop, insofar as there is need. S. O. 25. Jan. 1703. Collect. S. C. de P. F. n. 548.

5. Caia, a heretic, fearing lest her newly born son be baptized invalidly by a heretical minister, calls a Catholic priest so that he may be baptized duly by him. He flies there gladly and baptizes the infant by the Catholic rite. But immediately he begins to doubt whether he acted rightly. For Caia in no way intended to oblige herself to educate her son in the Catholic Religion. And much less could this be expected from her obstinate Protestant husband.

Quaer. Whether the priest could baptize the infant, as in the Case?

R. Negatively, except in the article of death. Thus, in a similar Case, the Holy Office answered, 26. Aug. 1885. Collect. S. C. de P. F. n. 595. For, in order that a Catholic minister may licitly offer baptism to the son of heretics, it is necessary that he conceive a probable hope that a boy of this kind, once baptized, can in his own time be instructed in the true faith. But if he can in no way have a moral hope of this kind, he ought certainly rather to abstain from baptism, supposing that the little child is not in extreme necessity, in which any other person can be baptized. S. C. de P. F. 3. Jan. 1777. n. IX. Enchir. Moral. 464., I. M. 464.

6. "1. Whether, on account of the danger that a daughter be handed over in marriage to a Muslim or heathen man, or to a simple polygamous Christian, baptism can be administered to girls, whether infants or adults, when otherwise they have the necessary dispositions for receiving it?

2. Whether, on account of the danger that slaves be sold to Muslim or heathen masters, with danger to the faith, baptism can be conferred on them in infancy and also in adult age, as long as their master does not swear the contrary?

R. As regards the first, a distinction must be made between infant girls and adult girls. The former, where nothing else stands in the way besides the danger of future marriages, can and ought most safely to be admitted to baptism; for it is not equitable that, on account of an uncertain event still very remote, they be repelled from the certain benefit of obtaining baptismal grace. But adult girls are either not yet nubile, or indeed already nubile but not yet promised in marriage, or already betrothed to infidel or polygamous men. In the first and in the second Case there is no reason why baptism should be denied or deferred, provided the aforesaid girls have the necessary dispositions, since the danger of entering invalid marriages with infidels, and of afterward remaining in them violently, is not certainly and proximately imminent, and can otherwise be removed in several ways. But in the third Case it is in no way expedient to baptize them before marriage, both because of the not slight difficulty of obtaining a legitimate dispensation, and because of the most grave danger that they may proceed to the marriage even if no place is given for dispensation, which certainly cannot be granted over impediments of natural law; therefore it will be better to defer baptism than to expose it to proximate profanation.

As regards the second doubt, it contains a greater difficulty concerning infants than concerning adults. For the foreseen danger of perversion prevents baptism from being conferred insofar as it can in no way be removed by opportune instructions. With this principle established, it follows that adult slaves of either sex who are duly disposed, and can be fortified beforehand with Christian instruction, are to be baptized, even if their master refuses to promise that he will never commit this act, namely, to sell them to infidels. Concerning slaves who are still infants, it is necessary to consider whether they are liable to the danger of passing into the power of infidels after they have obtained adolescence, or before they have passed beyond the age of infancy. In the former hypothesis, whenever nothing else stands in the way of their baptism besides the above-mentioned danger and some hope shines forth of their Christian education, they are licitly washed in the sacred laver; and this is likewise licitly administered to them in the latter hypothesis, if they are either offered by Christian parents, or are found near death." S. O. 25. June 1866. Collect. S. C. de P. F. n. 591.

7. "An infidel woman married to a heretical man asks to be admitted to baptism. The husband does not stand in the way of her receiving it and professing the Catholic religion, though he himself is unwilling to become Catholic. It is asked how the Catholic missionary ought to conduct himself: Whether, by baptizing the woman, he should permit her to contract marriage with that heretical man before a non-Catholic minister? Whether, by denying her baptism, he should give her occasion to receive it from a heretical minister? Whether he should baptize her and join her in marriage with the heretical man, which evidently involves communication in divine things?

R.... In the proposed Case the missionary ought to teach the woman concerning the nullity of the prior marriage entered into in infidelity with the heretical man, who, as being subject through baptism to the laws of the Church, was detained by the impediment of disparity of cult; and if he finds her rightly disposed, he can admit her to baptism. With her, also, a dispensation can be given by one having the faculty for this, so that, after baptism, she may be able licitly to marry the same heretical man, if nothing else stands in the way. For, as regards the validity of the marriage, she would now contract it validly in the provinces of Quebec and Canada because of the extension of the Benedictine declaration made by Clement XIII on 4 November 1741. But nothing is discerned to prevent baptism being licitly conferred on the aforesaid woman, since, as is explained, she herself wishes to profess the Catholic religion, with her own husband consenting to this. Nor would an urgent cause be lacking for dispensing with her, so that she may marry the heretical man, whenever it would be prudently feared from the denial of the dispensation that she would either be turned away from receiving baptism, or would receive it from a non-Catholic minister, before whom she would likewise enter marriage; which must in no way be permitted. But it would not be forbidden for the Catholic parish priest to assist at a marriage of this kind. For by force of the grant of Apostolic dispensation it would become licit, and therefore also the presence of the parish priest would be licit. But, as Benedict XIV admonishes in de Syn. dioec. lib. 6. cap. 5. § 4., in those places and regions where marriages of this kind, namely of Catholics with heretics, are sometimes permitted to be contracted, it is altogether expedient that the bishop, for protecting the decorum of the Church, opportunely and prudently prescribe the rites to be observed in the celebration of those marriages. And first of all, the bishop should have before his eyes and, insofar as can be done, should take care that the practice of the Holy See be observed, and the rules which are usually prescribed by it when, for grave causes, it dispenses in marriages of this kind: namely, that the marriage be celebrated before the parish priest and witnesses outside the church, with the nuptial blessing omitted, and every sacred rite; that the Catholic party be most gravely admonished concerning the obligation which he or she has, and which never ceases for him or her, of taking care for the conversion of the spouse and the education of offspring of both sexes in the Catholic religion; and finally that the Catholic education of the offspring also be brought into an agreement confirmed by oath." Instr. S. O. 16. Sept. 1824. to the bishop of Quebec.

The subject of Baptism is every and only wayfarer human being not yet baptized.

247. Resolves. - 1. Infants are validly baptized, likewise those perpetually insane who have never used reason, and consequently are considered of the same condition as infants. But if they have at some time used reason, Baptism more probably is not valid unless before their insanity they had asked for it. Yet in practice these would have to be baptized under condition, both because it is not altogether established that they did not ask for Baptism, and also because according to many it is enough if someone had the will of receiving all things necessary for salvation. - On the Sacraments in general, n. 228.

2. If there is doubt whether an infant is alive, he is to be baptized under condition. Hence Theologians rightly judge generally that all abortive fetuses are always to be baptized under condition, if they are alive; especially since today the opinion flourishes, commonly received by experts, that the fetus is informed by the soul from the beginning of conception, or at least not long after ¹.

¹ This opinion, midway between two opinions, one of which sets animation immediately from conception, the other at forty or even eighty days, seems to be the opinion of those who never knew or understood the reasons of either opposite opinion, and who therefore also cannot assign the reasons which impelled them to tread that middle way.

** St. Alphonsus writes (lib. 6, n. 124): Cardenas, Roncaglia, Mazzotta, and Croix, with other very grave Authors, judge very well that all abortive fetuses, if by some movement they give a sign of life, and it is not established that they are destitute of a soul, are always to be baptized under the condition if they are alive; especially since today there flourishes the opinion, received not without applause by experts, that fetuses are informed by the soul from the beginning of conception, or at least after some days. And in these words the St. Doctor seems to intimate that these fetuses are to be baptized both if they give a sign of life and even if they do not give a sign of life, provided at least that it is not established that they are destitute of a soul, that is, dead. And the reason is that it is established by experience that sometimes a sign of life does not appear unless microscopic instruments are applied.

But perhaps what the St. Doctor adds in the same place will be less pleasing to someone: Besides, Tournely rightly observes (that is, Collet), tom. 4, p. 363 (namely, On Baptism, chap. 7, art. 1, sect. 2, concl. 2), that a fleshy mass which has no disposition of organs ought not to be baptized, since it is everywhere received that the soul is not infused into the body before that body has been formed; and then, in order that it be baptized, it is required that it indicate some vital movement, as the Roman Ritual prescribes concerning the Baptism of little children. What Collet meant seems somewhat obscure. For he adds these things as though as an inference from those things which he had said about baptizing monsters. But it is not obscure that those things do not cohere with those things which St. Alphonsus had set forth beforehand. For the opinion concerning the soul of the fetus, whether from the beginning of conception or after some days, in no way coheres with the antiquated opinion concerning the animation of the fetus, which follows after the disposition of the organs, so that the body has been formed.

That a fleshy mass ought not to be baptized, Collet endeavors to prove thus: The Ritual of Paul V, to which in this matter more credence is to be given than to certain physicians fighting against the rest, whether physicians or philosophers, forbids that a fetus be baptized before signs of vital motion. But: 1. It is not to be thought that in the Ritual it is established that the animation of the fetus is to be determined according to time from Peripatetic opinions; 2. The sign of life of which the Ritual speaks seems to St. Alphonsus to be taken in this way: that it is not established that the fetus is already lifeless. Besides, Collet may have written those things in whatever way according to the more received opinions of his age; but in our age, since those opinions have become obsolete, surely neither right reason permits, nor does the practice of the Church allow, that ancient prejudices of that sort prescribe for us the manner of acting in that most grave business, in which the eternal salvation of souls is at stake.

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

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

248. Questions. - QUESTION 1. Whether the children of infidels can licitly be baptized?

Resp. 1. The answer is affirmative in the following cases, namely: 1. if they have the use of reason and consent, even if the parents oppose; 2. if the parents have fallen away from the Faith, as heretics are; because the Church has the right to coerce parents; 3. if the children are soon to die, because necessity presses, and no danger at all is to be feared; 4. if one of the parents consents, while the other resists. - St. Ligorius, n. 127.

Resp. 2. The answer is negative in other cases, for example if both parents resist, and the children are going to remain in the power of the parents; the reason is the danger of perversion. This is clear from the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, 1703. And for Hebrews in particular it is clear from the Constitution of Julius III. - St. Ligorius, n. 132.

QUESTION 2. Whether Baptism can or must ever be repeated?

Resp. It can and must be repeated under condition, whenever there is some not contemptible doubt concerning its value; otherwise it cannot be repeated without grave sin, because the attempt to administer a Sacrament to an incapable subject is sacrilege. - Recall the things said above, n. 200.

249. • QUESTION 3. Whether exposed infants are to be baptized?

Resp. The answer is affirmative if those exposed infants have been exposed without testimony of Baptism having been conferred, unless from elsewhere it is established that they were duly baptized. But if they have been exposed with a note attesting that they have been baptized, it is controverted. The more common and truer opinion teaches that all these are to be baptized under condition. - St. Ligorius, n. 135.

QUESTION 4. Whether infants baptized either by midwives or by lay persons are to be rebaptized?

Resp. No, unless there is a probable suspicion of error in the Baptism conferred. Thus the very common and true opinion, says St. Ligorius, n. 156, where he commemorates the decision of the Sacred Congregation.

QUESTION 5. Whether those baptized by heretics must be rebaptized?

Resp. It is certain, of Faith, from Trent, that Baptism conferred by heretics is valid when all things required for the Sacrament are used. But Theologians commonly and deservedly think that all children baptized by Protestant ministers are to be rebaptized under condition, because there must be doubt about the matter, form, and intention of such ministers, who do not judge this Sacrament to be absolutely necessary. - St. Ligorius, n. 137 ².

² To the doctrine on the subject of Baptism belong those things which St. Alphonsus hands down concerning monsters (lib. 6, n. 125): When, he says, it is doubted whether a monster is a man, it is to be baptized absolutely if the head is human, although the members are beast-like; but under condition if the head is beast-like and the members human; this, indeed, if it proceeded from intercourse of a man with a woman. For if it proceeded from a man with a beast (which I think incredible), then it should always be baptized under condition; otherwise, if from a woman and a brute; for then it should in no way be baptized, because it would not descend from Adam, since it was not conceived from virile seed. To these things observe that the last consequence would be legitimate if it is established that a fetus of this sort cannot be a participant in human nature. But if you suppose otherwise, the consequence is not valid; for from the fact that he could not be called a son of Adam, it would follow only that he does not have original sin, according to those things which St. Thomas also has, 1.2, q. 81, art. 4, and 2, dist. 31, q. 1, art. 2, ad 3, but not that he does not need sanctification, which can be from grace alone. St. Alphonsus continues: But if it has duplicated members of a man, and it is doubted whether it is one man or two, a double Baptism is to be conferred, one absolutely, the other under condition on that part in which the members appear more imperfect... Then he refers to the Roman Ritual, in which these things are had: But in baptizing monsters, if the case happens, great caution must be used; concerning this, if there is need, the Ordinary of the place or other experts are to be consulted, unless danger of death threatens. A monster which does not present the human species must not be baptized; but if there is doubt about this, let it be baptized under this condition: If thou art a man, I baptize thee, etc. But that concerning which there is doubt whether it is one person or several is not to be baptized until this is discerned; and it can be discerned if it has one or several heads, one or several breasts; for then there will be as many hearts and souls, and distinct men; and in that case each is to be baptized separately, by saying to each: I baptize thee, etc. But if danger of death threatens, and time does not suffice that each be baptized separately, the minister, pouring water on the heads of each, will be able to baptize all together by saying: I baptize you in the name, etc. But when it is not certain that there are two persons in the monster, as because it does not have two heads and two breasts well distinct, then first one must be baptized absolutely, and afterwards the other in this way: If thou art not baptized, I baptize thee, etc.

126. 1. Infants of Catholic parents are to be baptized as soon as possible.

Hence the Code of Canon Law, c. 770, commands: "Infants are to be baptized as soon as possible, and pastors and preachers are frequently to admonish the faithful concerning this grave obligation of theirs." The reason is that the life of infants is so tender that death can occur very easily and very quickly, and then the gate of heaven would remain closed to them for all eternity. Therefore Leo XIII most vehemently reproves the custom of delaying the baptism of infants: "Nothing surely is more unjust than this evil custom, nothing more contrary to ecclesiastical sanctions, since it not only brings the eternal salvation of so many souls, with inexcusable temerity, into manifest danger, but also certainly deprives them during that time of the ineffable gifts of sanctifying grace which are infused through the laver of regeneration.... We cannot but disapprove and execrate from our soul so detestable a usage, at once impious toward God and toward men, wherever it has unfortunately become established."¹⁵² By common law no determinate time has been established within which infants must be baptized under grave sin; but by particular law it is not rarely prescribed that the baptism of infants not be delayed beyond one or two weeks.

Theologians dispute what delay of the baptism of infants is a grave sin. Wherever a particular law concerning this matter exists, it is to be observed, and transgressions of it are to be judged according to the mind of the legislator. But if particular law is lacking, grave scandal to the people and danger of death for the infant being excluded, it is utterly impossible to assign accurately what delay is a mortal sin. Concerning this matter St. Alphonsus¹⁵³ writes: "Palaus, from Suarez, thinks that delay beyond a month is grave if there is no cause; but if there is a cause, that a delay of two months is grave. Laymann thinks almost the same.... The Salmanticenses, however, judge that it is not mortal to delay, unless beyond fifteen or twenty days, even without an urgent reason. Juénin, on the contrary, according to his custom of constricting consciences to the utmost, says that baptism ought not to be delayed beyond one or two days. Tournely, however, thinks that delay is not to be extended beyond five or six days..., but more commonly and more probably, Sotus, Leander, and Ledesma, cited by Concina and Roncaglia, say that the delay is not grave unless ten or eleven days are exceeded." In so great a multitude of opinions, which clearly demonstrates that nothing certain can be answered to this question, pastors and confessors are most earnestly to exhort parents not to delay the baptism of their offspring beyond three days without a most urgent cause.¹⁵⁴

¹⁵² Epistle to the Bishop of Anglona, July 22, 1899 (Collect. de Prop. Fide, n. 2060).

¹⁵³ Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 118.

¹⁵⁴ Noldin (De sacr., n. 66), following Ballerini-Palmieri (Opus theol. IV, n. 745) and Génicot (Theol. mor. II, 146), thinks that a delay, even a notable one, is not to be accused of grave sin, provided that there is a serious will not to neglect baptism and that danger of death is not truly to be feared. This opinion indeed seems sufficiently lax and opposed to the words of Leo XIII cited above. In some regions, however, parents are excused from mortal sin because of an erroneous conscience. The delay of the baptism of adults will be discussed below, n. 134.

127. 2. Infants of heretical and schismatic parents could, by strict right, be baptized by the Catholic Church, since they are subjects of ecclesiastical laws; nevertheless, the Church does not use this right and has even forbidden pastors to baptize such infants unless there is hope of educating them in the Catholic religion.¹⁵⁵

In this matter the response of the Holy Office on August 26, 1885, is to be noted: "If, because of the lack of a Protestant minister, an infant to be baptized is offered to a pastor or another Catholic priest by Protestant parents, who nevertheless are unwilling to promise the Catholic education of that infant, can the pastor in this case confer baptism for the salvation of the infant's soul, setting aside what will happen if the infant reaches the years of discretion? Reply: In the negative, except at the moment of death." This response seems to have been given especially for the case in which the parents approach a Catholic pastor solely because of the lack of a Protestant minister. For if the pastor then conferred baptism solemnly, great scandal would arise. But if in this case the pastor confers baptism only privately and without all the ceremonies, because no one else is present who would certainly baptize validly, and if at least some probable hope exists that the offspring will be educated in the true faith, we think that he acts licitly, since he thus provides for the eternal salvation of the infant, nor does serious scandal seem to arise therefrom.

Resolutions. The infants of those Catholic parents who, because of indifferentism or even hatred toward the Church, refuse baptism can be baptized. For since these parents have not yet publicly apostatized from the true religion, some hope still exists that the infants, after attaining the use of reason, will be instructed in the Catholic religion. If an infant not yet baptized is at the moment of death, charity gravely requires that anyone confer baptism upon him even against the will of the parents.¹⁵⁶

A pastor can licitly baptize an infant when either parent consents and promises a Catholic education, although he foresees that the other parent will object and that the offspring will be educated in heresy.¹⁵⁷ The reason is that some hope of a Catholic education is then present.

After an infant reaches the years of discretion, he can be baptized when he himself asks and wills it, although his heretical parents object. Nevertheless, because of the unjust civil laws in force in many regions, it is often advantageous, in order to avoid greater evils, to delay baptism, at least solemn baptism, until that age which grants children the right to live in the true religion against the will of their parents. Meanwhile, such a child is to be well instructed in the Catholic religion and frequently to elicit an act of perfect charity, so that he thus receives baptism of desire and remains in the state of sanctifying grace. Moreover, according to his ability he must guard against every proximate danger of perversion. He could obtain a dispensation from positive ecclesiastical laws, for example, the laws of hearing Mass, abstinence, and so forth; but he could not fictitiously receive the Supper in a Protestant church.

¹⁵⁵ Holy Office, May 17, 1916.

¹⁵⁶ Code of Canon Law, c. 751.

¹⁵⁷ Cf. Lehmkuhl, Theol. mor. II, 114.

128. 3. Infants of infidel parents cannot, outside the moment of death, be baptized without the knowledge or against the will of their parents.

Concerning this matter St. Thomas¹⁵⁸ writes: "The children of infidels either have the use of reason or they do not. If they have it, they begin to be of their own power in those things which are of divine or natural law; and therefore by their own will, against the will of their parents, they can receive baptism. But if they do not yet have the use of free will, according to natural law they are under the care of their parents.... And therefore it would be against natural justice if such children were baptized against the will of their parents.... It is also dangerous to baptize the children of infidels in this manner, because they would easily return to infidelity because of their natural affection for their parents. And therefore the Church does not have this custom, that the children of infidels be baptized against the will of their parents." Indeed, the Church has positively forbidden such children to be baptized outside the moment of death.¹⁵⁹

In three cases these infants can and must be baptized, namely: 1. when they are in such danger of death that they are prudently foreseen to be going to die before they attain the use of reason; 2. when, being placed outside the power of parents and guardians, they can be educated in the Catholic religion. This latter case frequently occurs in mission territories, where infants are exposed or sold by their parents; 3. if both infidel parents, or at least either one, or the person who uses paternal authority in place of the parents, consents to the baptism of the infant, and at least some hope exists that a Christian education will be had, or that the danger of future perversion will not be so proximate and certain. The third exception is evident of itself and has been confirmed by the Roman Curia.¹⁶⁰ The reason for the first exception is that at the moment of death the eternal salvation of the infant to be procured altogether requires that baptism be conferred upon him. Nevertheless, if in such a case great harm to the common good, for example, a persecution of religion, would arise from baptism being conferred, then it is necessary to abstain from baptism, because the private good of the infant must yield to the common good of society. On July 18, 1894, the Holy Office established that infants can be baptized not only at the moment, but also in danger of death, indeed even when it is foreseen that they will not reach the years of discretion.¹⁶¹ The reason for the second exception is that a pagan education and the danger of perversion are the sole obstacle to conferring baptism. But this obstacle is removed in the case.¹⁶²

Scholion. On the baptism of exposed infants. Exposed infants¹⁶³ ordinarily are to be baptized under condition, unless it is established that they have already received valid baptism.¹⁶⁴ But if moral certitude of baptism having been received is had from a note attached to the infant or from elsewhere, it is not lawful to baptize again.

¹⁵⁸ S. theol. 3, q. 68, a. 10.

¹⁵⁹ Cf. Benedict XIV, Constitution Postremo mense, February 28, 1747, who, relying especially upon the doctrine of St. Thomas, treats at great length the question of baptizing Jews and infidels, both infants and those possessed of reason (Denz., nn. 1480 sqq.).

¹⁶⁰ Cf. Holy Office, February 13, 1867 (Collect. de Prop. Fide, n. 1302); Code of Canon Law, c. 750, § 2, n. 1.

¹⁶¹ Cf. Collect. de Prop. Fide, n. 1877.

¹⁶² When, notwithstanding the prohibition of the Church, an infant has been baptized against the will of infidel or Jewish parents, he must even by force be educated in the Catholic faith. Thus it was done in the celebrated case of Edgar Mortara, who, having been baptized by a maidservant, was afterward educated in the Catholic religion against the will of his Jewish parents by command of Pius IX. When this boy reached the years of discretion, he freely chose to remain in the Catholic religion, and afterward became a Canon Regular of the Lateran.

¹⁶³ Commonly Findelkinder, foundlings.

¹⁶⁴ Benedict XIV, De syn. dioec., l. 7, c. 6, n. 5; Acta Conc. Plen. Americae Latinae (1899), n. 502; Code of Canon Law, c. 749.

1471. Children are indeed VALIDLY baptized against the will of parents; for it is not written, says St. Augustine, unless anyone shall have been reborn from the will of parents, but unless anyone shall have been reborn of water, etc. But here it is asked whether always LICITLY? Concerning this, hold these things:

Principles. I. It is certain that with the Church there is the right of baptizing infant children of HERETICS or SCHISMATICS, and of preventing them from being imbued with the errors of their parents, nor can any doubt be raised concerning this right of the Church (cf. n. 132 sq.). But indeed, for the sake of prudence, "that a Catholic minister licitly furnish Baptism, it is necessary that he conceive a probable hope that such a baptized child can, in his own time, be instructed in the true faith. But if in no way he can have such a moral hope, he certainly ought rather to abstain from Baptism, supposing the little child not to be in extreme necessity, in which anyone else can be baptized." S. C. de PROP. FID., April 17, 1777.⁴

Note. The same Sacred Congregation, on November 29, 1672, declared: "It is licit for a pastor to baptize a child, with one Catholic parent consenting, even if he knows certainly that the other will afterwards take care that the infant be baptized by a heretical minister; but the Catholic spouse is held to admonish the heretical spouse that the son has already been legitimately baptized."⁵

1472. II. It is licit to baptize children of UNBELIEVERS, against the will of parents, in the following cases: 1. If they have the use of reason, or, in doubt, have completed seven years, and ask for Baptism, yet precaution having been taken against the danger of perversion. 2. If they are in danger of death and can be baptized secretly, without violence inflicted on parents, and without scandal of unbelievers.⁶ 3. If they have been placed outside the care of parents, and fear is absent lest they return to them, as if they were exposed or abandoned. 4. If they are perpetually insane. 5. If they have been captured by right of war; likewise, if their parents are slaves of Christians. 6. If one of the parents consents to Baptism, the other resisting. The same must be said if, the father being dead, the paternal grandfather consents to Baptism, although the mother resists.⁷

1473. III. Outside the aforesaid cases, it is NOT LICIT to baptize the children of unbelievers AGAINST the will of parents. The reason is that, if they are left in the power of the parents, the Sacrament would certainly be exposed to the danger of profanation on account of the undoubted danger of perversion and apostasy; if they are withdrawn from the parents, the natural right of parents would be injured, by which children, as long as they do not enjoy the use of reason, are under the power and care of parents, just as their other things are. Thus the more common opinion of the doctors against the Scotists, confirmed by the use of the Church and by the Constitution of Benedict XIV Postremo mense, February 28, 1747.⁸

IV. Offspring baptized, whether licitly or illicitly, against the will of parents, ARE TO BE WITHDRAWN from their power, that they may be INSTRUCTED in the faith received and persevere in it. The reason is that man through Baptism is subjected to the jurisdiction of the Church, and consequently is by right liberated from paternal care in those things which look to the government of the soul, insofar as it can be contrary to the acquired right of the Church; for the right of natural paternity ought to yield to the right of the spiritual paternity of the Church.⁹ Yet scarcely today can this doctrine be brought into practice, since civil laws obstruct it.

The subject of Baptism is every and only wayfaring man not yet baptized.

1260. Resolves. - 1° Infants are validly baptized, likewise the perpetually insane who have never used reason, and therefore are judged to be of the same condition as infants. But if they have ever used reason, Baptism more probably is not valid unless before the insanity they sought it. In practice, however, such persons should be baptized under condition, both because it is not plainly established that they did not seek Baptism, and also because according to several authors it is enough if someone had the will of receiving all things necessary for salvation. (Cf. nn. 1238, 1240.)

2° If there is doubt whether an infant lives, he is to be baptized under condition. But since today the opinion that the fetus is informed by a soul from the beginning of conception is common (n. 474), an abortive fetus, however small, if it has human form and gives a sign of life, is to be baptized absolutely. But if indications of humanity and life scarcely appear in it, it is to be baptized under the condition: if thou art a man. The same must be said concerning an unformed production - unless it already displays manifest signs of putrefaction, decomposition, or disorganization - and provided there appear the outlines proper to a human fetus, by which it is distinguished from a mole and other fruitless generations.¹ But if the fetus is still wrapped in the afterbirth, it is not to be baptized at least on the exterior membrane of this, since to experts today no doubt remains that it is part of the mother, not of the fetus.² Therefore in that case the afterbirth is to be cut open before Baptism is conferred.

3° Concerning monsters, note these things from the Roman Ritual: "In baptizing monsters ... great caution is to be employed: concerning this, if there is need, the Ordinary of the place, or other experts, are to be consulted, unless danger of death is imminent."

"A monster which does not bear before itself the human species ought not to be baptized; but if there is doubt concerning it, let it be baptized under this condition: If thou art a man, I baptize thee, etc." But it will have to be said to bear before itself the human species whenever it has a head, however deformed that may be. Thus experts today.³

"But that concerning which there is doubt whether there is one person or several persons is not to be baptized until this is discerned; but it can be discerned if it has one or several heads, one or several breasts; for then there will be as many distinct men, and ... each one separately is to be baptized." If there is danger in delay, let him wash each one with the form in the plural. "But when it is not certain that in the monster there are two persons, because it does not have two distinct heads and two distinct breasts, then one must first be baptized absolutely, and afterward the other under condition, in this way: If thou art not baptized," etc.

4° He is validly baptized whom the Minister thinks to be someone else; indeed even if it is a female whom he thinks to be male, because he intends to baptize the one present, and not another (n. 1218).

5° Several are validly baptized at the same time with this form: I baptize you, provided they are washed at the same time. But outside the case of necessity this is illicit.

6° Adults, although rude, who nevertheless are not altogether incapable, cannot be baptized unless according to their capacity they have been instructed at least in the things necessary by necessity of means, as are the principal mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation. This also holds for dying persons of this sort, who therefore will have to be baptized without condition if the one baptizing prudently judges that the sick person sufficiently knows the aforesaid mysteries according to his capacity, truly gives faith to them, and sincerely promises that he will satisfy the duties of a Christian man; otherwise they either ought not to be baptized, if the contrary is morally certainly established, or under condition, if these necessary dispositions are doubtful, Baptism cannot be deferred, and otherwise nothing stands in the way of the conferral of this Sacrament. - Nor is it lawful to leave an adult baptized or to be baptized in good faith as regards the precepts of positive law (not even as regards those things which perhaps he will obey with difficulty), but all the precepts of positive law ought to be intimated to him. - Thus from very many decisions of the Congregation of the Holy Office, especially to questions of Missionaries.⁴

1261. Questions. - Query 1° Can the children of non-Catholics licitly be baptized against the will of their parents?

Resp. Distinguish. For they either certainly have the use of reason, or doubtfully have it, or certainly do not have it.

If the first, asking and sufficiently instructed, the danger of perversion having been guarded against, they both can be baptized, and, every fear of evil having been set aside, ought to be baptized. - They can; for one certainly having the use of reason (which each one is regularly judged to have when the seventh year has been completed)¹ "already, as regards those things which are of divine or natural right, begins to be of his own power."² - Every fear of evil having been set aside, they OUGHT. For they have a strict right to the aids of salvation, which the Ministers of the Church are held from divine mandate to furnish; wherefore "it is not lawful to reject them, if they earnestly ask, from fear of the offense of parents, or of public hatred, or of another inconvenience.... Prudence indeed is necessary," - and hence "the consent of the parents is to be sought by the children themselves," if they are still minors, but not by the priest, and, insofar as can be done, all things are to be done with their peace - but not that "prudence which places the advantages of this world before the salvation of souls."³

If the second, St. Alphonsus⁴ with Benedict XIV and Lugo holds that before the seventh year Baptism is to be deferred until it is established concerning the perfect use of reason. The Instruction of the S. C. de P. F. to the Prefect of the Missions of Tripoli is consonant.⁵

If the third, subdistinguish. - It will be lawful in the cases in which the danger of perversion ceases, namely, if either the parents are slaves of some Catholic; or the offspring has been placed outside the care of the parents (for example, if exposed and taken up by Catholics), without fear that it will return to them; or it is perpetually insane; or it is placed in the article, or morally certain danger, of death. Except, nevertheless, if, although it is placed in the article of death, scandal is to be feared, because, for example, some greater hatred against the Catholic Religion and savagery against Catholics would be stirred up.⁶ For the common good is to be preferred to a private good.

Outside these cases it will not be lawful, whether there is question of the children of unbelievers, or among us of heretical parents. For there stand in the way, even as regards the children of heretics among us, the danger of perversion and the reason of scandal, or of graver evils. - I said: even as regards the children of heretics among us. For although the right of baptizing infant children of heretics belongs to the Church, and of preventing them from being imbued with the errors of their parents, nevertheless this right of hers cannot be executed among us. Hence absolutely no deference is to be shown to nurses, if they bring infants to the church to be baptized, while the heretical parents suspect nothing.⁷

1262. - Query 2° Whether and when can infants of consenting non-Catholics licitly be baptized?

Resp. Affirmatively, if there shines forth a probable hope of their Catholic education, care nevertheless having been taken that a sponsor, male or female, and these Catholic, be had.¹ The reason is, because then the danger both of perversion and of scandal is absent.

But practically that hope is to be said to shine forth:

a) If the parents are persuaded that the Catholic Faith is true, and have the intention of embracing it, or at least seem somewhat disposed toward embracing it.

b) If they permit to a Catholic godfather or godmother the instruction of the child in matters of Faith, and promise that they will place no obstacle to the children professing the Faith.

c) The same seems to be said if one or the other parent is so disposed.

d) "As often as one or the other parent professes the Faith, although the other pursues it with more than Vatinian hatred, the infant can be baptized, with the Catholic parent being admonished to put forth every effort in its Catholic instruction. But if he grows so sluggish that he cares nothing about this, or if he has already bound himself to the spouse to permit to him the education of the child in heresy, it will not be lawful to baptize the infant with that condition, with manifest and certain danger of apostasy. For the most part, indeed, it is to be hoped that the Catholic spouse will sometime be recalled to a sense of Religion, and will be solicitous concerning the right instruction of the children, unless he plainly fosters the contrary purpose."² These things are similar to those which were decreed concerning Christian women of Turks asking that their children be baptized.³ (3) p. 417.

"But if the parents, as sometimes happens, ask for priestly ministry from a cause of opportunity alone, or because they believe Baptism to be necessary, while they reject most of the other dogmas of the Faith, and wish to educate the children in heresy, or to keep them until mature age without any document of religion, so that they may judge more freely and more maturely concerning matters of Faith, and choose a sect at will, we do not think it lawful to baptize the infants, since the Sacrament is profaned by heretical instruction, or by infidelity, which is so likely to follow. The S. C. Ing. in the month of September 1827, having weighed those things which seemed to import a moderation of the decrees concerning this matter in the diocese of Bardstown, judged that there was no departure to be made from the decrees."⁴

1263. - Query 3° Can or ought Baptism ever be repeated?

Resp. It can and ought to be repeated under condition, whenever concerning its value there is some doubt not to be despised; otherwise it cannot be repeated without grave sin, because an attempt of ministering a Sacrament to an incapable subject is sacrilege. (Cf. n. 1213). But a doubt is to be despised if either 1° one witness (although a woman, concerning whom nevertheless no suspicion occurs) testifies concerning his own fact especially;¹ or 2° there is question of adults who were born of Catholic parents and educated among the faithful, although testimony is not had of Baptism received, provided grave reasons on the contrary side do not occur.²

Query 4° Are exposed infants to be baptized?

Resp. Affirmatively, if they have been exposed without testimony of Baptism conferred, unless from elsewhere it is established that they have been duly baptized. But if they have been exposed with a little note attesting that they have been baptized, it is controverted. The more common and truer sentence, which a decision of the S. C. C.¹ confirms, teaches that all these are to be baptized under condition, unless such a little note is of such a kind that it begets certitude, for example, because it was signed by a known priest.²

Query 5° Are infants to be rebaptized who have been baptized either by midwives or by lay persons?

Resp. Negatively, unless there is present a probable suspicion of error in the Baptism conferred. - Thus the most common and true sentence, says St. Alphonsus,³ who recalls a decision of the S. Congregation.

1264. - Query 6° What things are to be observed in the reception of Neo-converts?

Resp. Concerning these see the Roman Ritual, Ratisbon edition 1882, Supplement for the American Provinces of the United States, p. 1.

Nevertheless note the following:

It is said in the Instruction of the Holy Office, whose tenor is reported in the cited place:

I. Baptism, if it is repeated under condition, is to be repeated according to the order of the Baptism of adults. But the Fathers of the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore¹ petitioned that the faculty of using in the Baptism of adults the shorter formula established for little children, which until the year 1870 had been conceded for certain dioceses (not, however, prescribed), the Supreme Pontiff would deign to extend to all for ten or twenty years. Moreover the Sacred Congregation judged that Bishops ought to recur when the time of the last concession had been completed.² Therefore let each one see whether that shorter formula has been conceded in his diocese. But it is usually conceded, with the Bishop admonished that he take care to introduce gradually the formula prescribed for adults, and to guard lest the shorter one pass into custom. - But to the postulate of the Fathers that it be conceded to them what was conceded to the English, namely to baptize under condition privately, with lustral water only, and without ceremonies, adults converted from heresy, the Sacred Congregation responded: for the present it is not expedient.³ (4) p. 417.

II. If a Neo-convert, whose Baptism has been judged valid, greatly desires that the rites formerly omitted in his Baptism be supplied, the priest is indeed free to comply with this pious wish of his. Yet in such a case he will have to employ the order of the Baptism of adults, and to change the things to be changed on account of Baptism already validly received. Thus the aforesaid Instruction.⁴

III. "In the conversion of heretics" (supposing that the fact of Baptism conferred is established) "one must first inquire concerning the validity of the Baptism received in heresy." Today indeed, universally, one can prudently doubt concerning it; for "heretics" for the most part, "since they think rather incorrectly concerning Baptism, and hold it in the place of a mere ceremony which helps nothing toward obtaining the salvation of the soul, are most often accustomed to neglect certain rites which are of the greatest moment, and without which the nature of the Sacrament by no means subsists."¹ I said: universally; for the reason given only founds a presumption; but presumption ought to yield to truth; therefore by force of the same it will not be lawful to act unless diligence for discovering the truth has been employed in vain. Therefore the S. C. of the Holy Office rightly declared that "one must first inquire" concerning "the validity of Baptism received in heresy," and indeed "with a diligent examination having been instituted." But of this examination:

A) The objects are: the very fact of Baptism conferred or not conferred; then, if the fact is established, the mode and time in which, the sect in which, and the place where someone was baptized.

I said: a) the very fact of Baptism conferred or not conferred; for 1) Socinians and Quakers are not baptized; 2) Baptists, not before adult age; 3) Congregationalists, Unitarians, and Universalists judge Baptism free; 4) many other non-Catholic parents do not take care concerning Baptism to be conferred on their offspring, or procure it for only one or another of their infants, whence it happens that, the parents being dead, there is often no one who can testify concerning the fact of Baptism conferred, especially among us.

I said: b) the mode and sect. Thus Baptism "sometimes becomes doubtful from a slight reason, because ministers of the sects, especially Presbyterians and Methodists, sprinkle those to be baptized, and very often several at the same time, with a sprinkler; but" probably "the skin ought to be touched by the water and to flow."²

"Since the custom of the Baptists leaves no room of doubting concerning the abundance of water, and they pronounce the due form, certain words being premised, which do not vitiate it: that I may obey the Lord Jesus Christ or that I may obey thy command, the sole reason of doubting concerning the value of Baptism conferred by them would be taken from the separation of the ablution from the form; for this is pronounced entire before the immersion; or from defect of intention, namely because they believe Baptism to be the same as that by which John washed Christ. Therefore for converts from that sect, who all received Baptism in adult age and therefore can give certain testimony concerning it received, it does not seem that Baptism is to be repeated, not even with a condition added. Moreover an entirely close conjunction" (or one which the delay of one Pater does not interrupt) "ought to exist between form and matter, on which account we leave the matter to the judgment of the wiser." Thus Kenrick.³ Practically, Baptism will for the most part have to be repeated under condition, at least as it seems to me.

Among Anglicans (Episcopalians), the Baptism of Ritualists is presumed to have been duly conferred; most of the other Anglicans, and generally heretics, even today attribute no force to the rite.

Congregationalists, Unitarians, Universalists, as I said above, universally judge Baptism free.

Therefore the Baptism of all these is rightly presumed doubtful.

On the contrary, Baptism conferred by the Greek schismatics, by Eutychians, Nestorians, and other Eastern heretics, and also in the Gallican Sect which is called La petite Eglise, is to be held as certainly valid.

I said: c) time. Namely, at the beginning of this century, Rationalism not yet ruling among Protestants, Baptism was for the most part administered with greater care than today.

I said: d) place. Formerly especially, there were certain regions in Northern Europe which the same Rationalism had not yet invaded, while others already were plainly infected with it.

B) The manner of examination. Those are to be interrogated concerning the aforesaid things, and notably concerning the mode, both the one whose Baptism is doubted, who will be able to bear almost undoubted testimony if he was baptized in adult age, and others, if they can easily be had, who perhaps were present at his Baptism, or know in what way the rite was customarily performed in the region in which and at the time when he was baptized. "Nor is it generally to be demanded from converts that they receive Baptism again, if they themselves, well conscious of the morals of the sect to which they adhered, are persuaded that they were duly baptized." Thus Kenrick,⁴ whose sentence nevertheless is not altogether approved by others.

Once the examination has been completed in the way in which it can be done, today there will for the most part remain doubt about Baptism conferred by heretics. Wherefore it is universally repeated under condition, not only among us, but also in England, France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, and, Perrone testifying, even Rome.⁵

IV. "A threefold method of proceeding is distinguished in reconciling heretics:

"1) If Baptism is conferred absolutely, no Abjuration follows, nor Absolution, because the Sacrament of Regeneration washes away all things." - "Wherefore," says Kenrick,¹ "the custom of exacting it," i.e. Confession, "so that the soul may be disposed to the grace of Baptism, is altogether to be disapproved, as Cardinal Consalvi, Pro-Prefect of the S. Congregation de Propaganda Fide, responded to me when I consulted him, on 31 May in the year 1823, ... lest a graver burden be imposed on those wishing to approach Baptism, by which they may be frightened away; or the error creep in, that their sins must necessarily be declared; or they themselves, hindered by shame, conceal some things contrary to the dictate of conscience, and thus approach not rightly disposed. To those wishing to confess, it can be indulged, according to St. Thomas:² 'If, however, some to be baptized from their devotion should wish to confess their sins, their Confession would have to be heard, not for this, that satisfaction should be imposed on them, but for this, that spiritual information of life should be handed down to them against accustomed sins.'"

In which case they are to be instructed concerning this end of their Confession and concerning its non-obligation, lest they sin against conscience while they conceal certain things.

"2) If Baptism is to be repeated under condition, one must proceed in this order:

"A) Abjuration, or Profession of Faith.

"B) Conditionated Baptism.

"C) Sacramental Confession with conditionated Absolution.

"3) But when Baptism has been judged valid, only Abjuration, or Profession of Faith, is received, which Absolution from censures follows."

Concerning abjuration note: a) according to Kenrick,³ that it is done by the Piana Profession of Faith; but today that is to be used which the Roman Ritual exhibits, Ratisbon edition 1882, Suppl. p. 2. b) From Scavini, that it is to be done also by a material heretic. c) Perhaps by epikeia that formula can be omitted when there is question of persons of color, or other rude persons, to be received, who are able neither to recite nor to understand it. Also the priest can read it beforehand to women (or others) of more timid disposition, who will signify their assent at the end. Moreover the journal Pastoral-Blatt fuer Nord-America admonishes⁴ that two suitable witnesses are to be employed for the Profession of Faith, and this even then when for just causes it seems it must be received secretly, for example, in the sacristy.

Absolution from censures is to be given both to those for whom Baptism is repeated under condition, and to those for whom it is not repeated; but "in grave or light doubt whether the penitent incurred excommunication through heresy perhaps professed only materially, the priest here" (i.e. after the words "of excommunication, which") "should insert the word: perhaps."⁵

V. There is scarcely need to say that he is not to be admitted to Baptism who doubts concerning some doctrine of Faith, and that a man cannot be baptized who indeed acknowledges Baptism to be necessary, but rejects other dogmas. The same holds concerning him who in mind is not prepared to keep the mandates of God and the Church.⁶ Therefore it is altogether clear that the practice of some is to be disapproved, who formerly, lest they be compelled to obtain a dispensation in the impediment of disparity of cult, or I know not from what other cause, conferred Baptism upon an unbeliever about to enter Matrimony with a Catholic, not taking care concerning the Faith and concerning his will of living as a Christian. All these things are to be understood concerning ordinary cases; for:

VI. If there is question of a dying non-Catholic, who manifests a desire of embracing the Catholic Faith either by himself or, when he is no longer able to do this, through others, or formerly manifested it, the examination concerning the value of Baptism received in heresy ordinarily will not be able to be instituted on account of the circumstances, and the Sacrament under condition (or, if it is established that he was never baptized, absolutely), by a threefold or even one pouring of water, with all things to be done before Baptism omitted, is to be conferred by a priest vested in a white stole. Afterward, if time is available and he has Chrism with him, let him anoint him on the crown of the head, and impose the white linen cloth, and hand to him the lighted candle, as is handed down in the Order of baptizing.⁷ Baptism having been conferred under condition, the Confession of the dying person, in the manner in which it can be done, is received; but in every case absolution is given (under condition) from censures and sins. Then, if time permits and there is question of a dying person master of himself and sufficiently instructed, Viaticum will be ministered.⁸ Finally Extreme Unction is conferred, since an interpretative intention suffices for receiving it.⁹ But if the dying person is still master of his mind, the priest will take care that he express before witnesses his will of embracing the Catholic Faith and of dying in it, lest otherwise a place be given to inconveniences.

S. Th. III, q. 68, a. 3 and 9.

147. Principle I. Infants are capable of Baptism. - This is of faith, as is established from the profession of faith imposed by Innocent III on the Waldensians, from Lateran Council IV, cap. Firmiter, Vienne, and Trent, sess. 7, on Baptism, can. 13, against the Anabaptists, and from the whole tradition and practice of the Church from the beginning.

It is proved: that children be baptized 1. is necessary, because they are born in original sin, which is cleansed by Baptism; 2. is fitting, "so that, nourished from childhood in those things which belong to the Christian life, they may persevere in it more firmly"; 3. is fruitful, because the sacraments produce grace in all who place no obstacle; but children cannot place an obstacle (a. 9).

Nor should you say that children cannot receive faith, but lack the faith and intention by which adults are led to Baptism. For although they do not receive actual faith, nevertheless they receive the habit; but they do not need an actual disposition or intention, but are led to Baptism by the faith and intention of the Church.

148. Principle II. The children of the faithful are to be baptized as soon as possible. - The precept of baptizing them is of divine law (n. 133); the precept of baptizing them as soon as possible, if not of divine law, at least is of ecclesiastical law introduced by custom (can. 770).

This is established from Pope Siricius (384-398), ep. to Himerius, 2; from the Council of Florence, decree for the Jacobites, which "admonishes that sacred Baptism is not to be deferred for forty or eighty days or some other time according to the observance of certain persons; but it ought to be conferred as soon as can conveniently be done"; from Trent, sess. 7, can. 12, pronouncing anathema on the Baptists who said "that no one is to be baptized except at the age at which Christ was baptized, or in the very article of death"; likewise from the Roman Ritual, tit. II, c. 1, n. 39; from Benedict XIV, Const. Omnium sollicitudinum, September 12, 1744; from the Holy Office, January 11, 1899, and from Leo XIII, ep. August 13, 1899, who most vehemently reproves the custom of deferring the Baptism of infants, than which "nothing... is more unjust, nothing more contrary to ecclesiastical sanctions...: this detestable usage, impious at once toward God and toward men, wherever it has unhappily prevailed, we condemn and execrate from our soul."

St. Thomas gives the reason: "If children are to be baptized, Baptism is not to be deferred: 1. indeed, because in them greater instruction, or even fuller conversion, is not awaited; 2. on account of danger of death, because they cannot be helped by any other remedy, except through the sacrament of Baptism" (a. 3).

From these things it is clear that Baptism is to be conferred on infants as soon as morally, i.e. conveniently, it can be done, for example within three days; and that to defer it for a long time is a grave sin. And therefore parents gravely sin who without a just reason, out of negligence, put off the Baptism of infants for a notable time, for example for a month, or perhaps for 10-15 days; and even for a shorter time if there is a special danger for the infant, or scandal, or a particular precept of the region or diocese.

Hence: 1. "Let infants be baptized as soon as possible, and let pastors and preachers frequently admonish the faithful concerning this grave obligation of theirs" (can. 770).

2. It cannot be sustained, as it pleased some, such as Ballerini, Genicot, and Noldin, that a delay of Baptism, even a notable one, is not a grave sin where danger of death is not to be feared. Namely, this is not conformable to the words of the Ritual, of the Code, and of Leo XIII. Hence in the new editions of Noldin's work this was emended by Fr. Schmitt.

S. Th. III, q. 68, a. 10; II-II, q. 10, a. 12.

149. Principle I. Infants of Jews and unbelievers, outside danger of death, are not to be baptized when their parents are ignorant of it or unwilling (can. 750, § 1). - For although they are baptized validly, as must be held against Durandus, nevertheless they are not baptized licitly, both because in this way the natural right of parents is violated, and because an injury is done to the faith and to the sacrament on account of the certain danger of defection, and because it is contrary to the custom and law of the Church: thus St. Thomas and the Thomists against the school of Scotus, which held this to be licit, unless in a case in which greater inconveniences would follow. This doctrine of St. Thomas the Church approved, namely Benedict XIV in the Constitution Postremo mense, February 28, 1747, and the Constitution Probe te meminisse, December 15, 1751, and the Instruction of S.C.P.F., August 17, 1777.

It is proved from St. Thomas: "Children, sons of unbelievers, either have the use of reason or they do not have it. But if they have it, already as to those things which are of divine and natural law, they begin to be of their own power, and therefore by their own will, against the will of their parents, they can receive Baptism, just as they can also contract marriage. And therefore such persons can licitly be admonished and induced to receive Baptism. - But if they do not yet have the use of free choice:

1. According to natural law they are under the care of their parents, so long as they cannot provide for themselves... And therefore it would be contrary to natural justice if such children were baptized against the will of their parents; just as also if someone having the use of reason were baptized unwillingly.

2. It would also be dangerous to baptize the children of unbelievers in such a way, because they would easily return to unbelief on account of natural affection toward their parents.

3. And therefore the custom of the Church does not have this, that the children of unbelievers be baptized against the will of their parents" (a. 10).

It is said: outside danger of death; for in danger the necessity of the infant's salvation prevails, which cancels the right of the parents, and there is not so great a danger of perversion.

150. Exceptionally these infants can be baptized in three cases:

1. When they are placed in such danger of death that they are prudently foreseen to die before attaining the use of reason (Holy Office, July 18, 1892); the danger is to be understood as proper to the infant, not common to all even when a plague is raging (S.C.P.F., August 17, 1777).

2. When, being placed outside the power of their parents (i.e. of father, mother, grandfather, grandmother) or guardians, they can be educated in the Catholic religion: for then neither is the right of the parents violated, nor is there danger of perversion, as if they have been exposed or abandoned by their parents, or if parents and guardians are entirely lacking, or have lost their right over them, or can in no way exercise it (can. 750, § 2, 2).

3. If both parents consent to Baptism, or one or the other, or the guardians who in place of the parents exercise paternal authority, or at least one of them, and at the same time there is hope of Christian education (Holy Office, February 13, 1867; can. 750, § 2, 1), or even hope of the conversion of the parents: for there is equal natural right in each parent, which in the case is committed to the Church, and, exercised in favor of the child, prevails over the perverse will of the others.

Nevertheless they ought not to be baptized, unless in proximate danger of death; - indeed not even while this danger stands, if the sacrament cannot be conferred without exciting the hatred and persecutions of unbelievers against the Christian religion: for the common good of the Church is to be preferred to the private good of one person (S.C.P.F., August 17, 1777).

151. Principle II. Infants of two heretics or schismatics, or of two Catholics who have fallen into apostasy, heresy, or schism, although they could be baptized by strict right, nevertheless the Church has established that generally the same norms be observed as for the infants of unbelievers (can. 751).

For the Church a) of itself can baptize infants of baptized parents, because these are subjected by Baptism to the laws of the Church; whence of itself it is the right of the Church to urge the observance of the divine law, and to compel those parents to the Baptism of their children or to baptize the children against the will of the parents.

b) Yet, since generally there is no hope of Catholic education, but on the contrary there is great danger of defection, the Church, for the sake of prudence, does not use her right, and has established that the norms handed down above for infants of unbelievers are to be observed. Hence they cannot be baptized if the parents, when for example a minister of their own sect is lacking, seek Baptism but are unwilling to promise Catholic education (Holy Office, August 26, 1885); on the contrary, if they promise, and at the same time there is probable hope of due education, even if only one seeks and promises.

c) These norms are said to be observed generally, because special circumstances can be present which counsel otherwise.

152. Observation. - The same norms are not prescribed as to be applied to infants of Catholics who, having become indifferent, do not live in a Christian manner: for those infants, if they are offered, ordinarily can be baptized, because some hope of Catholic education is easily present. The same holds if one or the other parent is Catholic; in which case this one, as far as he can, ought to admonish the non-Catholic spouse concerning the Baptism conferred (S.C.P.F., November 20, 1672).

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.

Anna, a Protestant girl twelve years of age and educated for several years by nuns in a Catholic elementary school, asks Titius, who served that Mission situated in England, to receive her into the Catholic Church. From her answers to his questions, Titius finds that she is a girl of excellent character, sufficiently well instructed in the Catholic religion, and possessed of a firm intention to embrace the Catholic religion. Nevertheless, he knows well that within a short time she will leave the school, that her father, who is exceedingly hostile to the Catholic Church, is ignorant of his daughter’s will and will most certainly refuse consent; and he rightly fears that, if Anna is received, a considerable number of non-Catholics who send their children to the same school, anxious about their own children, may remove them from the school. Being doubtful, therefore, he asks:

1. What dispositions are required in adults that they may be admitted to Baptism?

2. Is it lawful to baptize children under parental authority whose parents are infidels or heretics, and when?

3. What is to be done in the case set forth above?

What dispositions are required in adults that they may be admitted to Baptism?

For valid reception they must have the will to be baptized, and that it may be lawful they must have faith, hope, and that sorrow for sin which is called attrition.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, p. 62.

2. Is it lawful to baptize the children of infidels and heretics, and when?

The First Council of Westminster (d. XVI, n. 6) says: “ A priest may baptize infants born of non-Catholic parents, provided that consent is had that they are to be educated in the true religion and that they have a Catholic godfather or godmother.” When children come to the use of reason they are their own masters per se and independent of their parents in what relates to religion. However, in concrete cases, converts of tender years should seldom be received unless they can be brought up amid Catholic surroundings. The danger of their afterwards falling away, of scandal and the opposition of parents and others must be considered, lest more harm than good be done. Non-baptized parents are not subject to the Church and St. Thomas teaches that it would be against natural justice if an infant of such parents who is in no danger of death were to be baptized without their consent.²

2 Ibid., p. 63.

3. What is to be done in the case?

Ann, a girl of twelve, educated by nuns in a Catholic elementary school, asked Titius, the parish priest, to receive her into the Church. Titius finds out that she is a good girl, well instructed in the Catholic faith, and determined to become a Catholic. However, in a short time she will leave school, her father is anti-Catholic, would certainly refuse his consent to her becoming a Catholic, and Titius fears that if she were received many non-Catholic parents would withdraw their children from the school. Under these circumstances Titius should tell Ann that he will receive her if she can get her father’s consent; that until she can do this she should foster the grace that has been given her by being good, constant at her prayers, reading good Otholic books, and patiently waiting till she is older or can get her father’s leave to enter the Church.

Lucius, a missionary priest in England, found, not without sorrow, that several boys and girls in his elementary school had not been baptized. Some were born of parents who were indeed Catholic but very negligent and vicious; others of Protestant parents who were indifferent in religious matters. After due instruction in the catechism had been given, he baptized all of them who were willing, and forcibly washed at the sacred font a certain four-year-old Lucillus, born of Catholic parents, who resisted vigorously with feet and fists. The neighboring priests heard these things not without astonishment. Hence it is asked:

1. Can children be baptized against their parents’ will?

2. Can children of heretics be baptized, and under what conditions?

3. At what time and under what obligation are parents bound to procure Baptism for their children?

4. What is to be said of the case?

The first question was answered above, p. 104, and the second, p. 98.

3. When and under what obligation are parents bound to have their children baptized?

Catholic parents are bound to have their children baptized as soon after birth as they can conveniently. According to approved theologians it would be a grave sin for parents to put off their child’s Baptism for a month without good cause.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, p. 63.

4. The case. Lucius did right to baptize the children of Catholic parents who had not been baptized. They are being educated in the Catholic school and they can thus be instructed in the Catholic religion. It is plain that there has been grave and culpable negligence on the part of their parents. For the same reason he was right too in baptizing Lucillus. He was only four years old and had not yet the use of reason, so that his resistance need not cause scruple or doubt. It was probably directed against a function which he considered objectionable but which he did not understand. As his parents were Catholics the Church had a right to baptize him. Lucius should not have baptized the children of Protestant parents without procuring a promise from the parents that they should be brought up Catholics and allowed to practise the Catholic religion. He should in addition have provided them with sponsors whose duty it would be to watch over their Catholic education. The Baptism, however, even of these was valid, and Lucius should do what he can to educate them as Catholics and induce them to lead Catholic lives.

Applied correction from Woywod's opening insert: Case XLVIII.—The New Code declares in Canon 765 that the father or mother cannot be sponsors at baptism which means that even though they attempted to act as sponsors they would not be recognized as such nor contract any spiritual relationship.

Antonia, unmarried, has had several children and another one is just born to her. Respectable persons in her neighborhood abhor her dissolute life, and only with great difficulty could sponsors be found for previous children. On that account she bids the father of the new born child: “We shall not bother about sponsors, for you may go along as such.” This the father did and he became sponsor. Subsequently this couple married, in another church; no one had any suspicion of spiritual relationship. A few weeks after the marriage the pair appear before the priest who baptized the last child to have it legitimized.

A glance at the baptismal register informs the priest of the whole situation; he inquires about the spiritual relationship and finds that no dispensation has been obtained; the marriage, therefore, is null and void. The convalidation of the marriage was not difficult, and took place in accordance with the rules; nothing further need be said about it here. The case is submitted only to suggest caution in baptizing illegitimate children, and to inquire whether some precautions should not be employed in Baptisms of this kind, in order to prevent such contingencies; also whether, by omission of some ceremonies, such parents at the Baptism of their children should be impressed with the Church’s detestation of their sin.

The ecclesiastical law does not prescribe precautionary measures nor omission of ceremonies. The Church gives the priest a free hand in these matters. But I am of opinion it would not be against the spirit of Canon Law, which imposes irregularity on the illegitimate birth, if the priest, with due prudence, determines upon some disciplinary measures within lawful bounds. The moral sentiment of the community would certainly thereby be benefited.

In many localities only a woman may become sponsor at the Baptism of illegitimate children. This would exclude the occurrence of a case like ours. This usage is not contrary to the Tridentine, which is satisfied with one sponsor. In some parishes illegitimate children—urgent cases excepted—must be brought in the evening for Baptism. In cities and manufacturing centers it may be difficult to carry out such measures, but in country parishes they can be carried out, and have frequently been carried out—as priests have told me—with good success.

Alois Pachinger, D.D.

A Jew, named Israel, married Sempronia, who was the child of a mixed marriage. She had been baptized a Catholic, but practised no religion at all. They were married before the registrar. At the birth of their first child, a girl, they both wished her to receive Catholic baptism. The priest, being aware that this was not always granted in similar cases, went to see them, and tried to induce them to promise that all the children who might subsequently be born should be baptized and brought up as Catholics, for if two persons after contracting a civil marriage give this pledge, it is possible to obtain a dispensation from the law prohibiting marriage between a baptized and an unbaptized person. The Jew Israel refused to be baptized himself, and he would not consent to make any promise, saying that the eldest son at least must be a Jew, so as to be able to recite the customary prayers when he himself died and on the anniversary of his death.

If Israel had made the promise a dispensation ab impedimento disparitatis cultus could have been obtained, and the ecclesiastical marriage performed sub passiva assistentia. Sempronia might have begun to practise her religion again, and the marriage between Jew and Christian would have been valid before the law and the Church. It would have been a mixed marriage, in which all the children were to be brought up as Catholics.

Israel would agree to nothing, and Sempronia, who had practised no religion for sixteen years, accepted with complete indifference the Bishop's decision that the child could not receive Catholic baptism, and it remained unbaptized; it was most unlikely that it would have been brought up as a Catholic. Only three years before Sempronia had been attending lessons on Christian doctrine at school, but the fact that she selected a Jewess to act as godmother reveals her state of mind. It was only when the priest pointed out to her the impossibility of having a Jewish godmother that she chose a Catholic, but one who never sent her own child to Mass on Sundays.

The end of the matter was that the Catholic godmother took the child to be baptized in the Lutheran Church. Thus the father was a Jew, the mother had no religion and the child was a Protestant! Such are the results of the teaching of the present day!—Karl Krasa.