Baptism of the unborn, the aborted, and monsters

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

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

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

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

An abortive fetus is a fetus prematurely projected from the womb (vol. I, n. 733).

I. Every abortive fetus brought forth at any time must be baptized, unless it is wholly certain that he is dead (cf. canon 747). The reason is that in the case it is at least somewhat probable that a wayfaring human being is present (vol. I, n. 732).

The same must be said of everything which is cast out from the womb of a pregnant woman and concerning which it is doubted whether it is a fetus or a mole, as it is called. For the rest, even if it seems to be a mole, this should be carefully dissected, so that it may be inspected whether perhaps a fetus lies hidden in it; likewise, if a pregnant woman suffers a flow of blood, it is expedient that the flow be moved and palpated, because sometimes something is found in it concerning which it is rightly doubted whether it is a fetus (St. Alphonsus, VI, 124).

II. Abortive fetuses, brought forth at any time, if they certainly live, are to be baptized absolutely; if doubtfully, conditionally¹ (canon 747). If the fetus brought forth is still enclosed in membranes or in a vesicle, proceed in this way: Place the vesicle on a table or in a basin or dish, and place a bowl of water nearby. Then first either pour some water over the vesicle or immerse the vesicle itself in the water of the bowl,² meanwhile saying: If you can be baptized, I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Then, holding the vesicle somewhat obliquely in the bowl of water, open it with the thumb and index finger of each hand, so that the liquid flows out from it. Then again say, moving the fetus somewhat here and there in the water: If you can be baptized, I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Afterward you must again draw the fetus out of the water (n. 54).

Note 1. They say that even very small abortive fetuses sometimes preserve life for a longer time, indeed for several days. Nevertheless there is danger that they may soon die; hence inquiry into whether the fetus is alive should not be prolonged too much.

Note 2. The things explained above must be especially inculcated to midwives and mothers. And although pastors are bound more than others to this instruction, nevertheless confessors too, from a confession heard, can and not rarely must prudently take occasion to ask whether they have been sufficiently instructed.

¹ Before the sixth month there can scarcely be certainty about the life of the fetus, whether it exists in the womb or is brought forth before the sixth month; in the latter case it is either dead or appears dead. Today, however, by means of the stethoscope the pulsations of the heart can ordinarily be perceived from the fifth month.

² Therefore the vesicle is not immediately ruptured, but is first immersed in water and cut there, namely because rupture outside water, on account of the contact of air, according to some, though others deny this, can be so dangerous that the fetus dies before Baptism has been conferred.

No one enclosed in the womb of the mother is to be baptized until there is probable hope that, duly brought forth, he can be baptized (canon 746, § 1). Therefore a fetus not yet duly brought forth cannot be baptized unless, Baptism being delayed, he will probably die without Baptism.

When the case occurs, proceed in this way:

I. If the infant has put forth the head and danger of death is imminent, let him be baptized on the head; nor afterward, if he comes forth alive, is he to be baptized again conditionally (canon 746, § 2).

II. If he has put forth another member and danger is imminent, let him be baptized on that member, however small it may be, for example on a finger or toe (cf. canon 746, § 3). But if you receive the occasion of baptizing again on a more principal member, for example on the hand or foot, then on that member you must baptize again, and indeed as often as you can on a member more worthy than before, for example on the breast or back or shoulders, until you have baptized on the head; for only then, when you have duly baptized on the cleansed head, is one of the Baptisms certainly valid. But if after you have baptized on a finger or toe you can immediately baptize on the head, then omit the other members which I have named between these two extremes and baptize immediately on the head.

Note. In cases in which you cannot immediately baptize on the head, each time in washing the member you must use these words: If you can be baptized, I baptize you, etc.¹

III. If the infant is entirely hidden in the womb, he is to be baptized conditionally. If afterward he is brought forth, he must again be baptized conditionally (canon 746, § 5).² A fetus enclosed in the womb is to be baptized conditionally, both because in practice it will be doubtful whether the infant was truly washed or was washed on the head, and because it is somewhat doubted whether a human being not yet born according to common estimation can be reborn.³ But, "just as original sin is contracted by generation alone, so likewise, in order that a man be regenerated by grace, it suffices that he has already been generated. And therefore Baptism is called regeneration by the Council, which does not require birth from the womb, since this is not called generation, but only that nativity which takes place in the womb and by which man becomes a son of Adam" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 107). For the rest, note:

1. The obligation of baptizing an infant in the womb of the mother before the completed fifth month of pregnancy will rarely be present. The reason is that on the one hand there is often great doubt about the life of the infant and about the required washing having been performed; on the other hand intrauterine Baptism, because of the destruction of the afterbirth membranes, will both increase the danger to the mother and bring on the danger of accelerating the death of the offspring.⁴ After the completed fifth month of pregnancy the obligation can more easily be present.

2. Concerning the manner of baptizing a fetus in the womb of the mother, I note: the infant, the afterbirth membranes having been perforated,⁵ can be reached and baptized by means either of a small syringe filled with water, or of a sponge filled with water, or of a moistened finger.⁶ Water mixed with corrosive mercuric chloride is usually used, and this licitly where otherwise there is true danger of disease for the mother (n. 53).

Note. It is clear that intrauterine Baptism must commonly be conferred by a physician or by a midwife, both because of decency and because of the difficulty and dangers attached to the matter. But if on the one hand it is foreseen that the infant will probably die in the womb, and on the other hand intrauterine Baptism cannot be conferred, it sometimes remains that the infant be extracted from the womb and, once extracted, baptized, absolutely indeed if he certainly lives, if doubtfully, conditionally (canon 746, § 4).⁷ Now the infant is extracted by means of some incision of the mother, especially by Caesarean section, as it is called. Concerning these we shall speak in a scholion.

¹ Theoretically, more perfectly thus: In cases in which you cannot immediately baptize on the head, the first time in washing the member you must use these words: If you can be baptized, I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; at other times: If you are not baptized and can be baptized, I... etc. (cf. Roman Ritual, title II, chapter 1, n. 16; canon 746, §§ 2 and 3).

² Sacred Congregation of the Council, 12 July 1794 and 16 March 1877.

³ For the opinion which holds that an infant in the womb of the mother cannot validly be baptized, St. Thomas cannot be cited; for he supposes that Baptism cannot be conferred except by washing the body of the mother, so that he does not deny that the infant is validly baptized if the water touches him immediately (cf. St. Thomas, III, q. 68, a. 11).

⁴ Cf. Capelmann-Bergmann, Medicina pastoralis, II, p. 109; Pastoral-Medizin, p. 243; Antonelli, Medicina pastoralis, II, n. 16.

⁵ Baptism first on the afterbirth membranes is omitted, because contact of air is not feared, contrary to the case in which a fetus already brought forth is to be baptized. The perforation of the afterbirth membranes, so that the fetus may be baptized rather certainly than very doubtfully over the membranes, is quite probably licit, because it yields equally immediately to a good effect, namely the possibility of baptizing the fetus, and to an evil, that is, the death of the infant to follow from the outpouring of the amniotic fluid.

⁶ Cf. Capelmann-Bergmann, Pastoral-Medizin, p. 242.

⁷ Roman Ritual, II, chapter 1, n. 20.

I. Monsters and prodigies are always to be baptized at least conditionally (canon 748). Namely, if the monster has a head and breast, or at least a head, even if beast-like, it is certainly a human being; since it cannot be anything else, because there cannot be generation between a human being and a brute: hence it is to be baptized absolutely. Otherwise Baptism is to be conferred conditionally; this also holds concerning one about whom it is doubted whether or not he ought to be reckoned among monsters and prodigies (St. Alphonsus, VI, 125).

II. If the monster has two heads and two sufficiently distinct breasts, there is a double human being; hence a double Baptism is to be conferred. If nevertheless danger of death is imminent, both are to be baptized at once under the form: I baptize you, etc.

III. But in doubt whether there is one human being or several, one is to be baptized absolutely, the others conditionally (canon 748). In practice, proceed in this way:

1. If the doubt arises from the fact that the monster does not have two sufficiently distinct heads and two sufficiently distinct breasts, then first one must be baptized absolutely, and afterward the other conditionally in this way: If you are not baptized, I..., etc.

2. If the doubt arises from the fact that the monster has two heads and one breast, proceed in the same way as was said under 1.

3. If the doubt arises from the fact that the monster has two breasts and, apparently, only one head, then let the head be baptized absolutely, then each breast conditionally: If you are not baptized, I..., etc.¹

¹ Namely, if, as commonly happens, it is doubtful which breast belongs to the baptized head.

“There exists a Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council of 12 July 1794: ‘A fetus baptized upon the crown of the head in the womb is to be rebaptized conditionally after birth.’ Theologians today give as the reason that it cannot be certain that the water truly touched the head of the infant, although the reason presented by Saint Thomas, part 3, question 68, article 11, no longer has force: that, generally, the body of the infant cannot in any manner be washed with water before it is born from the womb.—It is asked: If, in some particular case, a truly skilled and upright physician should attest that, by a very perfect method, more perfect than that which is now employed, the water without doubt touched the head of the infant in the womb, must the infant again be baptized conditionally after birth?—Response. Let the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council of 12 July 1794 be observed.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 16 March 1891.

“If it is certain that someone was baptized in such a way that the water in no manner touched a principal part of the body, but only the clothing, he is to be baptized absolutely; but if there is probable doubt that it touched him, he is to be baptized again conditionally.” Holy Office, 27 May 1671.

What about the Caesarean operation in order to baptize an infant not yet born? - The operation or Caesarean section consists in this, that the uterus of the pregnant mother is opened so that the fetus may be extracted. A twofold principal question occurs, namely whether or when it can be done, or must be done.

Whether or when can it be done? - When the mother is dead, it is certain that the Caesarean operation can be done, and indeed as soon as her death is established. For if anything opposed it, it would be the danger to the mother; but, from the hypothesis, her death is certainly established; and from another side the spiritual life, indeed perhaps also the temporal life, of the infant can be saved. Yet the Prefect or superior of the place is to be warned, and witnesses approved by him are to be used both for recognizing the death and for greater certainty of the matter, and especially lest the author of the operation be denounced as guilty of homicide. - When the mother is living, the Caesarean operation can never licitly be done whenever there is danger, either proximate or probable, of the mother's death to follow from it, although, if it is not done, the mother and offspring are certainly going to perish. The reason is that this would be the same as directly killing the mother, which is never licit. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 68, a. 11 ad 3 says: "A man must not kill the mother in order to baptize the child." L. 106. Hence the operation cannot be done when a very skilled surgeon is lacking, nor when the mother is so weakened by disease that the operation, otherwise not dangerous, would from the circumstances bring on proximate danger of death.

When the mother is living, the Caesarean operation can licitly be done with these conditions posited: 1. If she cannot give birth naturally, or is going to die before she gives birth, with the greatest danger of the death of the infant before he can be baptized. 2. If from the judgment of a skilled surgeon proximate danger of the mother's death is absent. But such danger can be absent if the mother is robust. 3. If a very skilled surgeon is present. Elbel 60. The reason is clear; for there is no danger, or at least it is very remote, and therefore, if perhaps death follows, it will seem to follow only accidentally.

Whether or when must it be done? - When the mother is dead, it certainly must be done under grave obligation, even against the will or resistance of parents or relatives, if it can be done; because from the law of charity the eternal salvation of the infant must be procured by every care and labor. Thus St. Thomas ibid., where he adds: "Yet if the mother has died, the offspring living in the womb, she must be opened, so that the child may be baptized." Thus also the Roman Ritual establishes. This especially holds if the time of birth is imminent, because since the fetus is more robust, greater hope of baptizing him shines forth. Moreover, careful attention must be used so that the region of the uterus of the deceased woman be kept warm until the operation has been done; for otherwise the infant would more easily depart from life before he could be baptized. Wherefore an obligation of this kind ceases if it is morally certain that the fetus died before the mother, or with the mother, or cannot be estimated as living. Nor indeed should there be delay in completing this operation, since the fetus, the mother being dead, ordinarily certainly dies not much later. - Speaking in itself and speculatively, the operation is to be done even while the mother is living, if from the judgment of experts the infant is to be brought forth alive, and the infant cannot otherwise be baptized, and it can be done without proximate danger of death. The reason is that from the general law of charity anyone is bound to suffer temporal inconvenience to preserve the spiritual and eternal life of his neighbor. Speaking in itself and speculatively; for in practice the confessor must beware lest he urge the mother under grave obligation, because of the excessive danger that, by denying consent, she may die in the state of mortal sin; and thus while he wishes to save the spiritual life of the infant, the mother herself would be damned. Therefore it will be enough to exhort her to consent to the incision. For the rest, since it is clear that the fetus can survive the deceased mother, then there certainly shines forth hope of baptizing him after she has died, and therefore a lesser obligation of incision presses. - But the mother is not bound to undergo the operation if, the operation being omitted, she alone is judged likely to perish; because no one is bound to preserve life by extraordinary and so arduous means. But if that hope of saving the offspring were altogether slight, the mother could, but would not be bound to, undergo the operation, because charity does not so urge in so great uncertainty of the event. And then baptism could at least probably be conferred on the infant remaining in the womb. Cf. n. 402. - L. ib.; E. M.

Note: Certainly anyone, once the mother has died, if the fetus still lives and this is clear, must procure that it be baptized. Wherefore, since with moral certainty it cannot be baptized in the womb itself, the uterus of the mother is to be opened by experts or even by others. But priests, regularly speaking, are not bound by this obligation, because of lack of skill, because of very grave inconveniences on the part of the civil authority, and because of scandal which would be had among the people. Hence from the Decree of the Holy Office, Feb. 15, 1780, a prohibition in this matter was made to missionaries in China: "This extraction of the fetus from the womb of the pregnant and deceased mother, although it is to be disclosed and urged, nevertheless His Holiness expressly cautions and prohibits that missionaries in particular cases involve themselves in ordering the section, much less in performing it." E. M.

The blessing after childbirth according to the Roman Ritual is not to be denied to a woman whose offspring died without baptism. S. R. C., May 19, 1896, n. 3904.

In order to baptize an infant not yet born.

The operation or Caesarean section consists in this: that the uterus of the pregnant mother is opened, so that the fetus may be extracted. A twofold chief question occurs, namely whether or when it can be done, or must be done.

256. Questions. - QUESTION 1. Whether or when it can be done?

Resp. The following rules seem to have to be established:

Rule I. When the mother is dead, it is certain that the Caesarean operation can be done, and indeed immediately when her death is established. Yet the Prefect or Superior of the place must be admonished, and witnesses approved by him must be used both for recognizing the death, and for greater certainty of the matter, and especially lest the author of the operation be traduced as guilty of homicide. But the reason why it can be done is evident: for if anything stood in the way, it would be the danger of the mother; but from the hypothesis her death is certainly established; and from another side the life spiritual, indeed perhaps also temporal, of the infant can be saved. - See Gangiamila in the work whose title is Sacred Embryology.

Rule II. While the mother is living, the Caesarean operation can never licitly be done whenever there is danger, either proximate or probable, of the death of the mother to follow from it, although, if it is not done, the mother and the offspring will certainly perish. The reason is that this would be the same as directly killing the mother, which is never permitted. - Thus St. Thomas, 3 part, q. 68, art. 11, ad 3, where he says: A man ought not to kill the mother in order to baptize the child. - St. Ligorius, n. 106. - Hence the operation cannot be done when a very skilled surgeon is lacking, nor when the mother is so debilitated by disease that the operation, otherwise not dangerous, is going to induce proximate danger of death from the circumstances, etc.

257. • Rule III. While the mother is living, the Caesarean operation can licitly be done, with these circumstances posited, namely: 1. if she cannot give birth naturally, or is going to die before she gives birth, with the greatest danger of the infant's death before he can be baptized; 2. if, from the judgment of a skilled surgeon, proximate danger of the mother's death is absent. But such danger can be absent if the mother is robust, as is clear from innumerable examples and from the more common opinion of physicians and surgeons, whose art, especially in our times, has become much more advanced and perfect. - See Sacred Embryology, lib. 3, c. 9. - Elbel, n. 60, etc. - The reason is clear; for there is no danger, or at least it is very slight and remote, and therefore if perhaps death follows, it will seem to follow only per accidens.

258. • QUESTION 2. Whether or when it must be done?

Resp. 1. When the mother is dead, it is certainly to be done under grave obligation, even with the parents or relatives unwilling or resisting, if it can be done; because from the law of charity the eternal salvation of the infant must be procured with every care and labor. - Thus St. Thomas, ibid., where he adds: If, however, the mother has died while the offspring is living in the womb, she must be opened, that the child may be baptized. - Thus also the Roman Ritual establishes. This especially holds if the time of delivery is imminent, because, since the fetus is more robust, a greater hope of baptizing him shines forth.

The operation is not for that reason to be omitted if it is known that the mother has been pregnant for a short time; because it is clear from many examples that the animation of the fetus occurs a little after conception. - See Sacred Embryology, lib. 1, c. 7.

Moreover diligent care must be used that the region of the uterus of the deceased woman be kept warm until the operation has been done; otherwise the infant would more easily withdraw from life before he could be baptized.

259. Resp. 2. The operation is to be done even while the mother is living, if from the judgment of experts the infant cannot otherwise be baptized. But the mother is bound per se, and speaking speculatively under grave obligation, to suffer it, if it can be done without proximate danger of death. The reason is that anyone is bound to suffer a temporal inconvenience for preserving the spiritual and eternal life of the infant. This follows from the general law of charity. - Thus commonly with Elbel, n. 60. - St. Ligorius, ibid. - Sacred Embryology, lib. 3, c. 4.

I said: per se and speaking speculatively; for in practice the Confessor must take care not to urge the mother under grave obligation on account of the too great danger that, by denying consent, she die in the state of mortal sin; and thus, while he wishes to save the spiritual life of the infant, the mother herself be damned. Therefore it will be enough to exhort her to consent to the incision.

Besides, since it is clear that the fetus very often survives the deceased mother, great hope shines forth of baptizing him when she has died, and therefore a lesser obligation of incision presses.

The mother is not bound to undergo the operation if, with the operation omitted, she alone is judged to be going to perish; because no one is bound to preserve life by extraordinary and so arduous means. - But if there were only a slight hope of preserving the offspring, the mother indeed could undergo the operation, but would not be bound to do so, because charity does not press so much amid so great uncertainty of the outcome. - Thus commonly with St. Ligorius, ibid.

Besides, from the new art of physicians, the infant can be baptized in the mother's womb with moral certainty by the aid of some instrument, as was said above, without there being need to recur to the Caesarean operation ¹.

¹ Compare the things said above (vol. I, note to n. 401), where abortion is treated, and the things which you have on the same argument in the note to n. 239 of this volume.

End of the Treatise on Baptism.

63. I. On aborted fetuses. Since today it is morally certain that the human fetus is informed by a rational soul already from the beginning of conception, and since moreover baptism is necessary for salvation for all, even infants, all aborted fetuses, even the smallest, are to be baptized, unless they are already dead.

1° When aborted fetuses seem fully formed, they are to be baptized absolutely, provided even the very slightest movement is apprehended in them; because such movement is a sufficient sign of life. - But if they seem without movement, and nevertheless are not corrupted or putrid, let them be baptized without delay under condition: if you are living... For life can exist without apparent movement, and putrefaction alone is a certain sign of death, so that infants who exteriorly were judged to be dead, after several attempts, were finally apprehended to be living.

64. 2° Aborted fetuses, even if not yet fully formed, in whom vital movement is apprehended, are to be baptized absolutely; but those who appear without movement, yet are distinguished from a mole or fleshy mass¹, are to be baptized under condition: if you are living. The reason for the former is that, where vital movement is present in a human fetus, there is a rational soul; the reason for the latter is that where it is lacking, it is doubtful whether the fetus is still living.

¹ To understand this, it must be known that aborted ova which are emitted sometimes lack a fetus or embryo, which has already perished, and therefore are only a fleshy mole. Moreover, after the first month from conception, the embryo does not exceed the length of one centimeter and is bent in the ovum, not extended, so that some attention is necessary for recognizing it.

3° When immature fetuses are emitted, they are still wrapped in the secundines, i.e., especially in two membranes or little skins, the former of which is called amnios, the other chorion. But it is disputed whether baptism conferred on an infant wrapped in the secundines is valid or not; some affirm, because these wrappings are judged to be part of the infant's body; others deny, because these do not belong to its body, but are like garments by which it is covered. - Hence in practice, when an embryo enclosed in the secundines is emitted, immediately, lest it perish, let it be baptized under condition: if you are capable; then, the wrappings having been broken or cut, let it again be washed under condition: if you are not baptized².

² This can be done thus, according to Capellmann, p. 115, note 2: let the fetus be immersed in warm water (lest it be killed by cold water); with thumb and index finger of each hand let some fold of the covering be grasped and broken, so that the matter of the ovum may flow out and the baptismal water directly wash the fetus; and at the same time let the form be pronounced.

65. 4° Monsters, or deformed fetuses which bear before themselves the appearance of a beast rather than a human, if it is established that they were born from a woman, are to be baptized absolutely, provided they certainly live; conditionally, if it is doubted whether they still live.

It is indeed said in the Roman Ritual³: "A monster which does not bear before itself the human appearance ought not to be baptized"; but this was written at a time when monsters were thought able to arise from the intercourse of a woman with beasts. But today it is discovered that the matter is not so, but that monsters arise from this, that the form of the human fetus, while it is still soft and flexible, can be so deformed and changed, from some vehement imagination or terror of the mother, that it assumes the form of a beast. Hence monsters of this sort, if they certainly live, ought to be baptized absolutely.

³ On the Sacrament of Baptism, n. 19.

66. If infants have two heads or two distinct breasts, it is presumed that there are as many distinct men, and each is to be baptized separately; unless danger of death threatens: for then the heads of both are to be washed at the same time, saying: I baptize you... If it is doubted whether there are two persons, because the two heads or breasts are not distinct, let one first be baptized absolutely, and the other under condition.

VIII. Anomalies which are sometimes noted in the body of man, and often generate horror, are called monsters, especially when in the fetus the species of the human body is totally or notably deformed.²³ For the human body does not always present all the regular anatomical and physiological organs which constitute a truly normal man, and often bears before itself several irregularities of greater or lesser moment, monstrosities, deviations from the normal type, which necessarily induce not slight physiological changes.

²³ Antonelli, cited work, t. I, n. 263 and 307. Anomalies can affect one or several organs, and be slight or grave. Cf. below II, Question 5.

They are distinguished into simple, and double or twinned, according as one fetus is born, or two twin fetuses adhering to one another, whether equally or unequally developed.

The causes are several: some preceding fertility, for example a morbid anatomical or physiological state of the parents, weakenings, alcoholism, heredity; likewise the physical state or conditions of the ovule or zoosperm or of both. Others are consequent, such as the action of the nervous system which, being moved by moral causes, can bring changes in the circulation of the fetus and in the contractions of the uterus; external mechanical pressures; diseases of the fetus and of the membranes; the development of several fetuses; the umbilical cord, which can surround and constrict several parts of the body; particular deviations and changes of development in the fetus.

I. In the question whether Baptism is validly conferred upon an infant who has not yet been born from the maternal uterus, a twofold opinion of theologians is given:

The first opinion, of almost all the ancients, Saint Augustine, Saint Isidore, Saint Thomas, etc., denies it, both because no one can be reborn before he has been born (Jn. III, 5), and because the one to be baptized must be a distinct member of human society, and therefore it does not suffice to wash the mother; but the infant himself in the uterus is enclosed, as the Roman Ritual says (tit. 2, c. 1, n. 16; cf. S. Th. in IV Sent., d. 6, q. 1, a. 1; and III, q. 68, a. 11). Nevertheless this reason does not hold because it supposes, and in this supposition the Ritual speaks, that the infant cannot be directly and immediately reached, which today is false; for he can be reached by an instrument. But the first reason has only slight probability: for a man is already said to be born in the uterus, as is read, Mt. I, 20: "That which is born in her is of the Holy Spirit."

Whence the second opinion, which is of a few ancients and of almost all more recent authors, rightly affirms it: for he who has contracted original sin and is a man in the way, is capable of Baptism (Council of Trent, sess. 5, can. 4), provided he can be reached.

II. Concerning such Baptism a threefold hypothesis can be made.¹ Either 1) a part of the infant cannot be reached, but only the veils by which he is covered; or 2) the veils having been ruptured or artificially perforated, a part of the infant in the uterus can be reached by hand or instrument; or 3) some member having been emitted, while the rest of the body has not yet been born, can be washed.

¹ Concerning unborn children to be baptized in the uterus, as also concerning abortive fetuses to be baptized and monsters, the following can usefully be consulted: De Smet, De Sacris in genere, Bapt. et Conf., and Collationes Brug., t. VIII (1903); likewise, Revue Eccl. de Liege, t. III (1907-08), n. 2; t. V (1909-10), nn. 1, 2, 3; Capellmann, Eschbach, and Antonelli in the works cited; manuals such as Tanquerey, Noldin, Prummer, Vermeersch; likewise Salsmans, Geneeskundige Plichtenleer.

In the third case: a) if the infant has emitted the head, Baptism is conferred validly and without any condition, nor afterward is it to be repeated, according to the ritual (tit. 2, c. 1, n. 16; cf. can. 746, § 2):² for the man is now judged born because the principal part has been born. b) If he has emitted another member, other than the head, Baptism is doubtful, nevertheless in necessity it is to be attempted under condition: si es capax, or si possum, but after perfect birth it is to be repeated under condition: si nondum es baptizatus (can. 746, § 3).³ c) If, with some member emitted and Baptism conferred on it, the danger of death perseveres, and another member, nobler or nearer to the head, is emitted, let him again be baptized under condition: si nondum es baptizatus.

² "If an infant has emitted the head and danger of death is imminent, let him be baptized on the head; nor afterward, if he has come forth living, is he again to be baptized under condition," can. 746, § 2.

³ "If he has emitted another member, on that member, if danger is imminent, let him be baptized under condition; but then, if having been born he has lived, he is again to be baptized under condition," can. 746, § 3.

In the second case, Baptism is very probably valid; nevertheless, since it is not altogether certain, let it be conferred under condition: si es capax. It must be done on the head if it is possible, and always after perfect birth it is to be repeated under condition: si nondum es baptizatus, as Benedict XIV and S. C. Council, 12 July 1794 and 16 Mar. 1897, teach; cf. can. 746, § 5.⁴ The reason is both because Baptism is in itself somewhat doubtful, and because it is very difficult to know whether one has sufficiently reached the head. Whence, Baptism having been conferred in the uterus, if a nobler member than that which was washed is afterward emitted and the danger of death perseveres, let it again be conferred under condition, as was said for the preceding case.

⁴ "A fetus baptized in the uterus must, after birth, be baptized again under condition," can. 746, § 5.

In the first case, Baptism is very doubtful; nevertheless it is to be attempted under condition, si possum or si es capax, if a better mode is lacking. But the case is very rare, for almost always the veils of the infant can be ruptured and the infant himself reached.

III. The following are enumerated as cases in which Baptism is to be administered in the mother's uterus:

1. when the mother is so afflicted by disease that probably the infant will die in the uterus, e.g., in the case of contagious disease, or if in the time of delivery the female genital canal or the uterus is torn, or there is grave hemorrhage which brings great danger to the life of the mother;

2. when delivery is more laborious and it is to be feared lest the fetus succumb to the labor, e.g., on account of asphyxia in a delayed and slow exit, on account of abnormal presentation, on account of hydrocephalus or excessive narrowness of the pelvis;

3. when, on account of doubt concerning the death of the mother, Caesarean section must be deferred longer; or, the mother being certainly dead, it is feared that the fetus is going to perish before the end of the operation;

4. in certain dangers of abortions, when the abortion already begun has become inevitable and it is probable that the fetus is going to die before expulsion, e.g., if the placenta is prematurely separated or the amniotic fluid is lost, or if it is feared lest uncontrollable vomiting or vehement hemorrhages bring abortion with them.

Nevertheless Baptism is not to be administered thus unless there is necessity in every way, according to can. 746, § 1: "Let no one enclosed in the mother's uterus be baptized, as long as there is probable hope that he can be baptized when duly brought forth."

IV. Let it be noted that the cutting of the veils by means of an instrument can easily be done in the last times of gestation, when the fetus is at least probably viable, after the fifth or sixth month completed, if there is instant danger of death before perfect birth; but in the earlier months very rarely,⁵ because of the great danger which, from the destruction of the veils, is brought to the delivery, the infant, and the mother. Whence it is not to be attempted unless it is certainly established both that the fetus is living and that his life is being shortened: for then before all things the soul would have to be saved. Nor would Baptism on the umbilical cord then suffice, since the infant himself could be reached.

⁵ Antonelli adds: Very rarely at this time can it be known whether the fetus certainly lives. The cutting of the membranes and the flow of amniotic fluid would increase the difficulty of delivery and expose the fetus and the mother to grave dangers of health; and since in this case it cannot be known whether some part has been washed by water, it does not seem expedient, on account of a doubtful spiritual effect, that bodily dangers are to be accelerated, t. II, n. 16.

Perhaps someone will say that cutting the membranes in the first months is equivalent to direct killing, which is never licit, not even for conferring Baptism. But the matter can be sustained thus: the very perforation of the membranes, in this case, is an action which removes an element necessary for temporal life, namely the amniotic fluid whose effusion it causes, but equally immediately confers an element necessary for spiritual life: the possibility of reaching the infant and conferring Baptism. In other words: it removes the extreme spiritual necessity, namely the membrane which is an obstacle to Baptism; but this brings with it and at the same time places the infant in extreme temporal necessity, from the consequent loss of the fluid.⁶ Nor is there parity with procuring the safety of the mother, because the possibility of this is not obtained except by means of harm to the infant, namely the very effusion of the fluid.

⁶ It was said: to remove an element necessary for temporal life, if this does not signify killing, then one must already despair of the value of terms. Resp.: It signifies killing; but what follows from this? A killing action is licit on account of a proportionately grave reason, if it equally immediately produces eternal salvation, as, for example, can be the case in Baptism conferred in icy water (see above p. 52). But because an action of killing, just as also of saving, can be mediate or immediate, and in the case it is not a question of an immediately killing action, just as neither of an immediately sanctifying and saving action, therefore, for the sake of clarity, we have preferred to write: to remove an element necessary for temporal life is licit if it is compensated by the conferral of an element necessary for spiritual life, provided that this is obtained equally immediately, not by means of the evil effect.

V. The manner of administering Baptism in the mother's uterus. It is conferred, the veils having first been ruptured if it is possible, by means of some irrigating instrument, e.g., a little siphon (seringue) full of water or with some sponge; but with the other hand one must inquire whether the water touches a part of the infant.⁷ But if these are lacking, it is conferred by the moistened hand alone, although this mode is easily doubtful (S. Off., 14 Dec. 1898). Warm water is to be employed, because cold water would harm the mother; indeed, when true danger of death in the mother is to be feared from pure water, it can be mixed with corrosive bichloride of mercury (HgCl2; eau sublimée, met sublimaat vermengd water), one part of this chloride being dissolved in one thousand parts of water,⁸ as the Holy Office responded, 21 Aug. 1901.

⁷ This will be easy in ordinary cases, since presentation of the head is had at least 90 percent of the time.

⁸ Besides the aforesaid mixture, which furnishes an antiseptic means, the water must be altogether pure, lest diseases be introduced into the woman giving birth.

The ministry is ordinarily to be reserved to the physician, or, if he is lacking, to the midwife, who is to be instructed by the physician or by the parish priest.

The parish priest is to be warned about Baptism conferred in this way.

I. A monster is a fetus in which the appearance of the human body is totally or notably deformed; a deformed fetus brought forth by a woman, which according to the various deformity is called by various names.

As to simple monsters, only three cases occur: for the monster either is acardiac, i.e., without head and breast, or has a human head, or has an animal head. "A head without a breast or a breast without a head are not found."¹

¹ Capellmann, o. c., p. III.

1. If it is acardiac, i.e., consists of belly and feet alone without head and breast, if, which rarely happens, a heart is present, it is rudimentary and atrophic, it is not to be baptized; a fortiori if it is a mole or formless fleshy mass. The reason is that certainly it is not a man, as lacking organs altogether necessary for human life.²

² The acardiac is regularly found with another well-developed fetus, and is always brought forth dead, after the well-formed fetus. But neither is it to be baptized in the uterus.

2. If it has a human head or one nearer to human, it is to be baptized absolutely, even if it is hemicephalic or acranic, because a head is present.³

³ It is called hemicephalic because in it the face is more developed and the cranium with the brain more or less diminished; acranic because the head is depressed, so that formerly they were called heads of a cat or of a turtle. Therefore simple ones, namely acrania, cyclopia, with one eye in the middle of the forehead, polydactylia, with several fingers, amelia, without arms and feet, phocomelia, with short members like seals, sympodia, with legs joined into one trunk, hydrocephalia, with an enormous head containing water, are to be baptized absolutely. Amorphous and anormous monsters, formless or round masses, much more probably are simple fleshy masses, but because they have something of the bones of the head, brain, and trunk, therefore it is not altogether certain.

3. If it has an animal head, then it is to be baptized under condition: si es homo. The Ritual says, t. II, c. I, n. 19: "A monster which does not present the human species is not to be baptized"; but this was written at a time when it was thought that monsters could arise from congress of a woman with brutes, while today it is established that this is impossible,⁴ and that monsters are formed from a morbid cause or from an accidental concurrence of causes or from vehement imagination or terror of the mother. Whence many more recent authors say that all monsters are to be baptized absolutely, because every living fetus is a man; but they say this from their preconceived opinion concerning the animation of the fetus from the beginning of conception. But it is also probable that the fetus is animated only around the end of the third month, when it acquires the external species of man; but before the third month it can perhaps be deformed, so that it never arrives at the aforesaid stage of external human species. Besides, where the fetus is deformed at a time when it is already animated by a rational soul, is it repugnant that this soul abandon an unsuitable body and that the soul of a brute succeed to it?

⁴ "Today there is no one who holds that a woman having congress with a wild animal can generate a wild animal or any fetus whatever." Thus Dr. Leroux, in Revue Eccl. de Liege, 1909-10, p. 107.

II. As to twinned monsters, double or multiple,⁵ either it is certain that one or several individuals are present, or it will be doubtful.

⁵ Tricephalic ones with three heads are very rare; likewise triplets; but parasitic triplets are more frequent.

1. In doubt whether the monster is one man or several, because it has two breasts and one head, or two heads and one breast, or two heads and breasts almost not distinct, let one head be baptized absolutely; the other head, or if this is lacking, the breast which does not seem to correspond to the head, or each breast if neither corresponds to the head, under condition: si non es baptizatus (Rit. Rom., n. 21).

2. In other cases it is clear either that there is only one man, or that there are two or more distinct ones; e.g., if there are two distinct heads and breasts, so that only the lower part of the trunk is common, they are undoubtedly judged two individuals, and therefore each is to be baptized separately, as the Roman Ritual prescribes, n. 20. On the contrary, if there is one head and one breast, and only the lower members are multiplied, let one center of life be reputed, and one individual to be washed only once.⁶

⁶ They are customarily distinguished: A. Equal doubles, or dicephalic ones, which have two more or less distinct heads: 1) thoracopagi, from haereo, have two heads and two joined breasts; 2) diprosopa, twice-face, have one breast and one head but two faces; 3) ischiopagi have two opposite heads and two bodies joined through the bones of the pelvis, but one umbilicus; 4) craniopagi, which have a double brain and body, so that they adhere through the crown of the head, or through the occiput, or through the frontal bones; 5) pygopagi, in which two adhere through the extremity of the vertebral column, buttocks, sacrum, and coccyx. B. Unequal doubles, namely: 1) syncephali, which have two breasts and one head, among which is the cephalothoracopagus, in which two are found joined from the umbilicus to the crown of the head. Very rarely are two heads present with a double face, Janiceps; ordinarily there is one complete face, and a trace of the other, but there is a double brain and also a double vertebral column, so that they are joined in the middle of the breast; 2) parasitic ones, e.g.: a) epigastria, which ordinarily have only pelvis and lower extremities; nevertheless sometimes to be baptized, if a neck or also a head is present; b) engastria, which are parasites in the belly of another; c) papyracea, in which one fetus compresses another already dead; d) epipygia, which adhere to another in the region of the sacrum and can have intestines and extremities; e) epignathia, which adhere upon the jaw as a fetal tumor. It is clear that all these parasitic ones are not to be baptized. But let it be noted that the aforesaid enumeration is not complete.

III. Observations. 1. By a general formula the Code of Law says, can. 748: "Monsters and portents are always to be baptized at least under condition; but in doubt whether they are one or several men, one is to be baptized absolutely, the others under condition." This holds of itself and regularly.

2. In the case of a multiple monster, if danger of death is imminent and time is not sufficient that each be baptized separately, the minister will be able, pouring water upon the heads of each, to baptize all at the same time, saying: ego vos baptizo, in nomine, etc. Nevertheless, outside imminent danger this is not licit, since then the form is always to be repeated for each one (Rit., n. 20).

3. The midwife must keep silence concerning monsters, lest displeasure be caused to the family. Nor should she impute it to the parents, even under light fault.

IV. Those perpetually insane who have never had the use of reason can be baptized at once like infants; those who have had the use of reason can be baptized provided that they have had this intention at least implicitly. Those who are not insane in perpetuity must be baptized in a lucid interval, unless in a case of extreme necessity (can. 754).

Notions. Under the name infant is here understood a "viable" human being, that is, an infant who is able to live outside the maternal womb; this is accustomed to occur after the seventh month of gestation. A fetus, however, is a conceived but nonviable human being.

129. 1. An infant existing in the maternal womb can and must be baptized if his life is in danger and there is no probable hope that, having been duly delivered, he can be baptized.¹⁶⁵ He can then be baptized because physicians today have instruments so perfect that, with moral certitude, the head of the infant, or at least another principal part of his body, can be washed with water. But he must be baptized because otherwise his eternal salvation is endangered or even destroyed.

Baptism conferred upon an infant still totally enclosed in the mother's womb must, after a successful birth, be repeated under condition, even though the physician testifies that the water touched the infant's head in the womb.¹⁶⁶ But "if the infant has put forth the head and danger of death threatens, he is to be baptized on the head; nor afterward, if he survives, is he to be baptized again. If he has put forth another member, he is to be baptized upon it under condition if danger threatens; but then, if after birth he lives, he is again to be baptized under condition."¹⁶⁷

¹⁶⁵ Code of Canon Law, c. 746, § 1.

¹⁶⁶ Thus the Sacred Congregation of the Council, July 12, 1794, and March 16, 1897; Code of Canon Law, c. 746, § 5.

¹⁶⁷ Thus the Roman Ritual, tit. 2, c. 1, n. 20; Code of Canon Law, ibid., §§ 2 and 3.

130. On Caesarean section¹⁶⁸ and other similar surgical operations. It is necessary to distinguish whether Caesarean section is performed while the mother is living or dead.

a) Must Caesarean section be performed while the mother is living?

Because baptism can with moral certitude be validly conferred upon an infant in the maternal womb, the mother now does not seem to have a strict obligation to undergo Caesarean section for the sake of conferring baptism upon the infant. For Caesarean section almost always causes the mother a grave danger of death, which she is not bound to undergo, since the spiritual salvation of the infant can be sufficiently secured in another manner, namely, through baptism in the maternal womb. For the bodily salvation of the offspring, however, the mother is not bound to expose her own life to the greatest danger. Nevertheless, the mother can sometimes licitly permit Caesarean section to save the infant and to render his baptism more secure, unless, however, most grave disadvantages would arise for the husband or for other offspring already born from the death of the mother which might follow.

b) Must Caesarean section be performed when the mother is dead: a) in order to baptize the fetus; b) in order to save the bodily life of the infant?

It is answered to a): If a physician is present who can and wills to perform this operation, it certainly must be performed in order to save the soul of the infant. Otherwise, however, so many and so great inconveniences are accustomed to arise from civil laws and other circumstances that a priest is not bound to urge it. The Holy Office, when asked concerning this obligation on December 13, 1899, ordered that a response already issued on February 15, 1780,¹⁶⁹ be given, in which it is stated: "Although this extraction of the fetus from the womb of a pregnant and deceased mother is to be disclosed and urged, nevertheless His Holiness expressly guards against and forbids missionaries, in particular cases, to involve themselves in ordering the section, much less in performing it." Moreover, if the infant is near to delivery, he can be baptized by means of some instrument without Caesarean section, as was said above. In the first four months, however, neither conception itself is certain, nor a fortiori is it certain that a fetus still living exists, since it is morally certain that so tender a fetus does not survive its dead mother. Therefore, at that time there is no grave obligation to perform Caesarean section with great inconvenience.

It is answered to b): If a truly well-founded hope of preserving the life of the offspring is present, this surgical operation certainly is to be performed, since the order of charity requires this. Such a hope is present, however, a) if the offspring has already been conceived for seven months; b) if the mother has not been consumed by a long and protracted disease; and c) if the section is performed immediately after the death of the mother has occurred. For from the seventh month the offspring is viable, as they say; but a long disease of the mother is accustomed also to harm the offspring and cause his death in the maternal womb.¹⁷⁰

¹⁶⁸ What Caesarean section is was already stated above, II, n. 133.

¹⁶⁹ Collectan. de Prop. Fide, nn. 541 and 2073.

¹⁷⁰ Cf. above, II, n. 135.

131. 2. Every abortive fetus, even the smallest, is to be baptized at least under condition, unless it is established from his putrefaction that he is lifeless. The reason is that several authors probably teach that the soul is joined to the fetus immediately after conception. Therefore, every living fetus is judged to be a human being, for whom baptism is accordingly altogether necessary. In practice it is sometimes difficult to judge whether an expelled fetus is living or dead. If he is certainly alive, let him be baptized absolutely; but if doubtfully alive, or if the least probability of life exists, the fetus is to be baptized under the condition: "If you are alive." Concerning the manner of baptizing, however, these things are to be noted according to Capellmann:¹⁷¹ The expelled fetus is to be taken carefully, and, by placing him in lukewarm water, not cold water, his membranes are to be ruptured, so that the amniotic fluid flows out and the water can touch the fetus himself. Then immediately the form is to be pronounced: "If you are alive, I baptize you..."; and afterward he is to be removed from the water. The reason for this manner of acting is that baptism conferred upon the so-called "secondines" is invalid. But if the secondines were ruptured outside the water, there would be a danger that the fetus would die suddenly from contact with the air. But if the secondines are ruptured under water, that danger is not so imminent, and moreover there is a greater probability that the water truly touches the fetus. Mothers, midwives, and physicians are to be diligently and prudently admonished not to omit baptizing abortive fetuses. For such abortions, whether culpably or inculpably, occur very frequently; and unless baptism is then conferred, innumerable infants are excluded from the kingdom of heaven.

¹⁷¹ Pastoralmedizin¹⁰, 259.

132. On baptizing monsters.¹⁷² The Roman Ritual and the Code of Canon Law also speak of baptizing monsters. For it sometimes happens that a woman delivers a mass which has a very deformed appearance. According to modern physiological science, this mass is either 1. a so-called "mole," that is, a certain growth produced in the womb from fluids and fibers, which certainly is not a human being;¹⁷³ it is not lawful to confer baptism upon masses of this kind, not even under condition, as is evident of itself; or it is 2. a true human fetus, although deformed. For today it is rejected by all that a woman can, without a miracle, give birth to a beast or another living being which is not human. Therefore, if such a deformed fetus gives signs of life, he is to be baptized. But if his life is doubted, he is to be baptized under the condition: "If you are alive." But if it is doubted whether such a deformed fetus is one human being or two, for example, because he has two heads or two chests, it is safer to baptize the individual heads or chests separately, saying: "I baptize you," etc. The first head or chest is to be baptized absolutely, but the others conditionally. But if danger of death threatens and time does not suffice for the individuals to be baptized separately, the minister can, while pouring water upon the heads of each, baptize all simultaneously, saying: "I baptize you all in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Nevertheless, it is lawful to employ this form only in these and other similar dangers of death, for baptizing several simultaneously, and where time does not permit the individuals to be baptized separately; never otherwise.¹⁷⁴

¹⁷² Mißgeburt, deformity.

¹⁷³ Commonly, a growth (Gewächs).

¹⁷⁴ Cf. Rit. Rom., tit. 2, c. 1, n. 22; cf. Code of Canon Law, c. 748.

1466. I. Outside danger of death, no infant is to be baptized unless he has been perfectly born. The reason is that to be born is prior to being reborn, and this is what Christ the Lord seems to suggest when He says: "unless anyone shall have been born again, etc."

We have said outside danger of death; for the Roman Ritual has these things: "But if the infant has put forth the head, and danger of death is imminent, let him be baptized on the head, nor afterwards, if he escapes alive, is he again to be baptized. But if he has put forth another member which indicates vital motion, let him, if danger is impending, be baptized on that; and then if when born he lives, he will be baptized under condition."

1467. II. "If a pregnant mother has died, the fetus is to be cautiously extracted as soon as possible, and if it is alive, it is to be baptized." Thus the Roman Ritual, and it is plainly established from the obligation of charity (cf. n. 483, Rule 2). Wherefore parents sin gravely who neglect that incision of the womb be done; and likewise surgeons or other experts, who omit or delay doing it; but also the pastor is held to take care that the mother not be buried, incision having been omitted.¹⁷

Today, however, in diverse regions the local Prefect must be admonished concerning the matter, and witnesses approved by him must be employed, both for recognizing the death and for greater certainty of the matter, and especially lest the author of the operation be brought forward as guilty of homicide.¹⁸

1468. Questions. Q. 1. Whether an infant in danger of death can be baptized enclosed in the womb of the mother?

Resp. 1. If he is altogether enclosed in the womb, so that water cannot reach him, he cannot be baptized: this is certain among all.

2. If, the mouth of the womb already having been opened, he can be reached by water through an instrument, the doctors dispute. Some indeed deny, because no one is said to be reborn unless he has first been born; but others very probably affirm, because such an infant is already a man as wayfarer, and can be said to have been born inchoatively, according to that (Matthew 1:20): "That which is born in her," that is, conceived, "is of the Holy Spirit." Therefore, in practice, he is to be baptized by the surgeon or midwife under condition: "If thou art capable, etc." (cf. n. 1456). But indeed: "A fetus baptized in the womb upon the crown is after birth to be rebaptized anew under condition." Thus the S. C. C., July 12, 1794, in Sutrina.¹⁹

Q. 2. Whether the mother can and is held to undergo a CAESAREAN SECTION, that the offspring may be baptized?

Resp. Affirmatively, if the following conditions concur together, namely: 1. if she herself cannot give birth naturally; 2. if the section, in the judgment of an expert surgeon, will not bring her into proximate danger of death, and from the powers both of the mother and of the fetus, and from the other circumstances, the safety of each can prudently be hoped for; for where the danger of death is judged only slight and remote, death, if it follows the incision, must be held to have happened per accidens; 3. if the offspring cannot otherwise be baptized. For in these circumstances there presses the obligation of suffering any temporal inconvenience whatever, for procuring the spiritual and eternal life of the infant.²⁰ But if only slight hope shines forth that the offspring can be saved, the mother can indeed, but is not held to, undergo the operation; because charity does not press in such uncertainty of the event (cf. n. 744).

For the rest, prudence will for the most part advise that the mother, who is in good faith, not be admonished concerning the grave obligation. She is only to be exhorted to consent to the section, lest perhaps, on account of denied consent, she die in a bad state, as Cangiamila rightly observes.²¹

Note. A girl dishonestly and secretly pregnant, and near death, if on account of advanced pregnancy it is probable that Baptism can be conferred on the fetus, is held to reveal her state outside confession, so that the operation may be done after she has died. Yet she must not be admonished if she is living in good faith and no fruit is at all hoped for from the admonition.

1469. I. An ABORTIVE fetus, however small, must be baptized; and indeed absolutely, if its animation and formation are established; but under condition, if there is doubt concerning its life or formation. Nor is Baptism to be omitted because the fetus is very recent; for, "today the opinion flourishes, not without applause received by experts," says St. Alphonsus, "that fetuses are informed by a soul from the beginning of conception, or at least after some days." And hence it is that, whenever some sign of life is found in them, and it is not established that they are destitute of a soul, they are to be baptized, with much caution indeed, lest they be killed, and with the condition added: If thou livest. "How many abortive fetuses," says Roncaglia,²² "through ignorance of midwives and mothers, the privy receives, whose soul, if it were not defrauded of Baptism, would see God eternally, and whose body, although it was unformed, would be more decently buried! But to whom especially under grave fault does it belong to expel ignorance? Is it not to pastors?"²³

Let the following things be noted: 1. The fetus is to be baptized which has at least the first outlines of a human body, which experts assert already happens on the third day, as Cangiamila reports.²⁴ Yet recognition of a fetus as such within the first weeks is difficult; but after a month easy, as Capellmann testifies.²⁵ 2. An incomplete fetus, or one not yet formed, is to be baptized by immersion in a basin or cup full of lukewarm water: absolutely indeed, if vital motion is apprehended in it; under condition, IF THOU LIVEST, when it appears without motion but is certainly distinguished from a mole; finally under the condition IF THOU ART CAPABLE, when it is doubtfully a human fetus. 3. A fetus or embryo which is enclosed in the membranes of the afterbirth,

and which softens and yields when touched by the finger, must be broken; but a mole appears as formless flesh, of bloody or varied color, hard to the touch.¹

1470. II. MONSTROUS births are to be baptized in a similar way. But these according to the following rules:

1. "A monster which does not show forth the human species must not be baptized: but if there is doubt concerning this, let it be baptized under this condition: If thou art a man..." Thus the ROMAN RITUAL. Hence, if the monster has a human head, it is to be baptized absolutely, whatever may be the case concerning the other members; indeed, even if it has a bestial head, it is to be baptized at least under condition, If thou art capable; because, as today's physicians testify, the bestial species is to be ascribed only to the woman's imagination, or to a defect of conformation.²

2. A monster concerning which there is doubt whether it is one person or several is not to be baptized until this is discerned. But it can be discerned: 1. if it has several heads and several distinct breasts; for then there are the same number of distinct men, and in that case each is to be baptized separately. But if danger of death is imminent, and time is not sufficient that each be baptized separately, the minister will be able, pouring water on the heads of each, to baptize all at once, saying: "I baptize you, etc." 2. If it has two heads and one breast, or two breasts and one head, or finally two heads and two breasts not well distinct, then first one must be baptized absolutely, and afterwards the other under condition, in this way: "If thou art not baptized, I baptize thee, etc." Thus the ROMAN RITUAL. If it has one head and two breasts, after the baptism of the head, each breast is to be baptized under condition: "If thou art not baptized"; because it is unknown by which breast the soul of the head is informed.

For the rest, in these cases, unless necessity presses, the matter is not to be done hastily; both so that the Ordinary of the place, or another expert, may be consulted, as the RITUAL admonishes, and so that with the lapse of time nature may explain itself.³

The operation or Caesarean section consists in this, that the womb of the pregnant mother is opened, so that the fetus may be extracted. A twofold principal question occurs, namely whether, or when, it can be done, or ought to be done.

1269. Questions. - Query 1° Whether, or when, can it be done?

Resp. The following rules seem to have to be established:

Rule I. When the mother is dead, it is certain that the Caesarean operation can be done, and indeed immediately, as soon as her death is established. Nevertheless he whom it concerns by law is to be warned, lest perhaps the author of the operation be made liable to penalties. - But the reason why it can be done is evident: for if anything stood in the way, it would be danger to the mother; but from the hypothesis her death is certainly established; and from another side the spiritual, indeed perhaps also temporal, life of the infant can be saved. - See Cangiamila in the work whose title is: Sacred Embryology.

Rule II. While the mother is living, the Caesarean operation can never licitly be done, as often as there is present a proximate or probable danger of the mother's death to follow from it, although, if it is not done, the mother and the offspring are certainly going to perish. The reason is, because this would be just the same as directly to kill the mother, which is never lawful. - Thus St. Thomas, who says: "A man ought not to kill the mother, in order that he may baptize the child."¹ Hence the operation cannot be done when a very skilled surgeon is lacking, nor when the mother is so weakened by disease that the operation, otherwise not dangerous, would from the circumstances induce proximate danger of death, etc.

Rule III. While the mother is living, the Caesarean operation can licitly be done in these circumstances, namely 1° if by no other licit means the living offspring can be extracted, or the mother is going to die before she gives birth, with the greatest danger of the infant's death before he can be baptized; 2° if, by the judgment of a skilled surgeon, proximate danger of the mother's death is absent. But such danger can be absent if the mother is robust, as is established from innumerable examples, and from the more common opinion of physicians and surgeons, whose art, especially in our times, has become much more advanced and perfect. - See Sacred Embryology,² Elbel,³ etc. - The reason is plain; for there is no danger,

or at least it is very slight and remote, and thus, if perhaps death follows, it will seem to follow only accidentally.

Query 2° Whether, or when, ought it to be done?

Resp. 1° When the mother is dead it is certainly to be done under grave obligation, even against the will or resistance of parents or relatives, if it can be done; because by the law of charity, with every care and labor, the eternal salvation of the infant must be procured. - Thus St. Thomas.¹ Thus also the Roman Ritual, On Baptism, establishes.

Nevertheless there must be present hope of extracting the infant alive, which hope is scarcely present in the first months of pregnancy; but, unless some special grave reason suggests that he has already died before the mother or together with her, after the fourth month of gestation this hope seems to be present (Capellmann, Med. Past. p. 23. 24). In doubt concerning the life of the infant it is always to be done. See Marc,² and cf. n. 474, I.

Furthermore diligent care is to be employed that the region of the womb of the deceased woman be kept warm until the operation has been done; otherwise the infant would more easily depart from life before he could be baptized.

Resp. 2° The operation is to be done also while the mother is living, if by the judgment of experts the infant cannot otherwise be baptized. But the mother is held, per se and speaking speculatively, under grave obligation to suffer it, if it can be done without proximate danger of death. The reason is, because she is held to suffer any temporal inconvenience whatever for preserving the spiritual and eternal life of the infant. This follows from the general law of charity. - Thus commonly with Elbel,³ St. Alphonsus,⁴ Sacred Embryology.⁵

I said: per se and speaking speculatively; for in practice the confessor must beware lest he urge the mother under grave obligation, on account of too great danger, lest by denying consent she die in the state of mortal sin; and thus, while he wishes to save the spiritual life of the infant, the mother herself be damned. Therefore it will be enough to exhort her to consent to the incision.

Besides, since it is established that the fetus very often survives the deceased mother, great hope shines forth of baptizing him after she is dead, and therefore a lesser obligation of incision presses.

The mother is not held to undergo the operation if, the operation being omitted, she alone is judged to be going to perish; because no one is held to preserve life by extraordinary and such arduous means. - But if there were only a slight hope of saving the offspring, the mother could indeed, but would not be held to, undergo the operation, because charity does not urge to such a degree in so great uncertainty of the outcome. - Thus commonly with St. Alphonsus.¹

Query 3° Is a girl, dishonestly and secretly pregnant, and near to death, if on account of advanced pregnancy it is probable that Baptism can be conferred upon the fetus, to be obligated to disclose her state outside Confession, so that the operation may be done when she is dead?

Resp. Distinguish. Negatively, if she is living in good faith, nor is fruit hoped for from an admonition. Otherwise, affirmatively; for the eternal life of the fetus is to be preferred to the reputation of the mother.

Query 4° Is a priest held to perform the operation on a dead mother, if there is lacking someone who is willing or able to perform it?

Resp. It is controverted. See the arguments of those disputing at Marc.² It is certain that one must abstain from it if damage to Religion is to be feared from it, lest "while we seek a few, we lose many:"³ likewise, as is plain, if the relatives dissent. But the damage to be feared for Religion must be judged especially from the circumstances of various places. - Nevertheless then let him at least strive to obtain that Baptism be conferred within the mother's womb by someone through an instrument.

Query 5° In what manner is that operation to be performed?

Resp. 1° Let the section be made from the navel down to the pudendum or pubic bone; but lest the intestines be injured, let this caution be employed: after a small opening has been made, the one operating immediately inserts into it the index finger placed under the back of the scalpel or knife, and in the aforesaid way cuts first the skin, then the other coverings which cover the intestines. When this has been done, the womb, if the pregnancy is more advanced, will appear of itself; otherwise it will be found behind, after the bladder. If this is filled with urine, and impedes the finding of the womb, let it be compressed by the hand and emptied.

2° When the womb has been found, it is immediately cut, proceeding from the upper and anterior part to the lower; then also the membranes of the afterbirth, by which the fetus is enveloped, are cut or ruptured.

3° The infant or fetus is extracted, and if certain or doubtful signs of life appear, he is to be baptized without delay. But if it is thought or feared that danger of death is present, the fetus is to be baptized before he is extracted.

4° After Baptism has been conferred, if certainly or probably the infant still survives, the umbilical cord is cut at the distance of two or three inches from the belly, and is tightly tied with a thread at the distance of one inch from the same belly; when these things have been done, he is handed over to be nourished.

S. Th. III, q. 68, a. 11.

153. State of the question. - By unborn are understood fetuses enclosed in the womb of the mother, or at least not yet perfectly brought forth. These, on account of grave illness or the condition of the mother, or because of difficult birth, can be in danger, so that it may be necessary to baptize them before birth. Now for those who are already partly brought forth, if they put forth the head, Baptism conferred upon it is certainly valid; if they put forth another member, Baptism conferred upon it is doubtful, according to what was said in n. 124. But concerning those who are entirely enclosed in the womb, there is a twofold opinion of theologians:

The first opinion, of almost all the older writers, denies that Baptism can validly be conferred upon them, both because no one can be reborn before he has been born (John III, 5), and because the one to be baptized must be a distinct member of human society, and consequently it does not suffice to wash the mother; but the infant himself is enclosed in the womb, as for centuries the Roman Ritual, t. 2, c. 1, n. 16, used to say after St. Thomas, q. 68, a. 11 and in IV Sent., d. 6, q. 1, a. 1. Yet this reason does not hold, because it supposes that the infant cannot be touched directly and immediately, which today is false: for commonly he can be touched by an instrument; - but the first reason has only slight probability: for a man is already said to be born in the womb, as is read in Mt. I, 20: "That which is born in her is of the Holy Spirit."

Whence the other opinion, which is of a few of the ancient writers but now morally of all the more recent writers, rightly affirms that Baptism is conferred validly upon infants in the mother's womb: for one who has contracted original sin and is man as wayfarer is capable of Baptism (Council of Trent, sess. 5, can. 4), provided he can be touched.

154. Principles. - I. "No one enclosed in the mother's womb is to be baptized until there is probable (in the proper sense, namely likely) hope that, duly brought forth, he can be baptized" (can. 746, § 1).

For outside a case of necessity it is not fitting to baptize in the womb, all the more because Baptism, on account of the difficulty of certainly washing the head of the infant, easily becomes doubtful; but to minister a doubtful sacrament is not licit outside necessity.

II. If probable hope is lacking that the infant can be duly brought forth:

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

2. "If he has put forth another member, let him be baptized on that member, if danger is imminent, under condition (if you are capable, or if I can); but then, if once born he lives, he is again to be baptized under condition (if you are not yet baptized)" (can. 746, § 2 and 3).

Since the principal member, namely the head, has been put forth, the infant is already considered born, because the chief part has been born, and therefore Baptism is certainly valid; on the contrary, if another member has been put forth, Baptism is not sufficiently certain. Hence theologians conclude: if, when some member has been put forth and Baptism has been conferred on it, danger of death persists, and another member much nobler or very near to the head is put forth, let him be baptized again under condition: if you are capable and are not yet baptized.

III. When danger of death is wholly imminent, an infant enclosed in the womb is, as far as possible, to be baptized under condition.

For in the case, before all else care must be taken for the eternal salvation of the infant. For this the membranes in which the infant is enclosed are to be broken, so that he may be washed immediately with water. The cutting of the membranes can easily be done by means of an instrument in instant danger of death during the last periods of gestation, when the fetus is at least probably viable; but in the earlier periods, very rarely, on account of the great danger brought upon the birth, the infant, and the mother from the destruction of the membranes; whence it is not to be attempted unless it is certain both that the fetus is living and that its life is being diminished: for then before all else the soul of the infant seems to have to be saved.

It is no obstacle that cutting the membranes in the first months is equivalent to direct killing, which can never be licit, not even for conferring Baptism. For in the case there is an action which immediately has a twofold effect: one good, the other evil. For the very perforation of the membranes does indeed take away an element necessary for the temporal life of the infant, namely the amniotic fluid, whose outpouring it causes; but just as immediately it confers an element necessary for spiritual life: the possibility of touching the infant and conferring Baptism. Namely, this possibility follows immediately from the very perforation, and not by means of the consequent outpouring of the fluid, and would subsist even if that fluid were not poured out.

Indeed it takes away extreme spiritual necessity by perforating the membrane which is the obstacle to Baptism, although in this way at the same time it places the infant in extreme temporal necessity, from the consequent loss of the fluid.¹

¹ Do not conclude from this that the cutting of the membranes can also be done for procuring the safety of the mother. For parity is lacking; because the possibility of saving the mother would not be obtained immediately, but only by means of harm to the infant, namely by means of the outpouring of the fluid.

IV. "A fetus baptized in the womb, after birth must again be baptized under condition (if you are not yet baptized)" (can. 746, § 5).

The reason is both because Baptism is in itself somewhat doubtful, on account of the probability, although slight, of the opinion asserting that no one can be reborn before he has been born; and because it is very difficult to know whether someone has sufficiently touched the head. Thus Benedict XIV and S.C.C., July 12, 1794 and March 16, 1897.

155. Question: Must a fetus be extracted from the womb of the mother so that it can be baptized? - St. Thomas says, ad 3: "Evils are not to be done so that goods may come, and therefore a man ought not to kill the mother in order to baptize the child." Whence Caesarean section, or incision of the mother's abdomen and uterus for extracting a living fetus, is illicit if it quasi-necessarily brings about the death of the mother.

A. While the mother is alive, the operation is licit, and of itself the mother is bound to undergo it, with these conditions given: if 1. the mother cannot give birth naturally; 2. the safety of the mother and infant can prudently be hoped for by means of the section, for neither the mother nor the fetus himself can be killed so that the latter, before he dies, may be baptized; and 3. in the judgment of an expert the infant cannot otherwise be baptized. For then by the law of charity the mother is bound under grave obligation to prefer the eternal salvation of the neighbor, namely the infant, to the inconvenience and danger of her own temporal life.

And so it is required that 1. the fetus, for the present circumstances, be viable, otherwise by extraction from the maternal womb he would be killed; 2. the mother be robust; 3. and the surgeon be expert: for then, on account of the progress of surgical art, the danger of death for the mother is commonly sufficiently remote.

In practice: a) The obligation of the mother rarely exists, because more often the fetus survives the dead mother or there is serious hope that he will survive, and because generally by means of an instrument he can be baptized in the womb; yet it would be erroneous to say that the mother is never obligated.²

² Some practically deny the obligation, or doubt concerning it, such as Genicot, Th. M., II, n. 144; Noldin, Th. M., II, n. 344; Cappello, op. cit., n. 165; because it ought to be certain that the infant cannot be saved in another way, and that he would certainly be saved by the operation. - But 1. in this matter absolute certitude is not required, but it suffices that this be morally certain; 2. also it is not required that the infant be certainly saved by the operation, but that there be probable hope of this: thus according to the rules handed down in the treatise on Charity, where it treats of help to be brought in a case of extreme spiritual necessity. Whence Fr. Schmitt emended the doctrine in this matter in the 20th edition which he gave of Noldin's work.

b) Even in the case in which she is bound to undergo the incision, generally prudence forbids admonishing the mother, if she is in good faith, concerning the grave obligation, on account of the danger lest perhaps, by denying consent, she die in the state of sin; nevertheless the priest, likewise the physician and relatives, ought to exhort her to the section.

c) The physician is bound to perform the section if it is sought from him, and is bound to exhort the mother that she undergo it, because by justice he is bound to employ the safer means for preserving the life of the mother and of the offspring; whence the priest should induce the physician to render this office.

d) By one not expert, for example by a priest, the section cannot be done while the mother is alive.

B. When a pregnant mother is certainly dead, immediately after death a Caesarean operation is to be performed, as the Ritual prescribes, tit. 2, c. 1, n. 20: "If a pregnant mother has died, the fetus, extracted by those whom it concerns, if he certainly lives, is to be baptized absolutely; if doubtfully, under condition" (can. 746, § 4).

The obligation arises from the grave precept of charity, by which we are bound to take counsel for the eternal salvation of the neighbor, in the case the infant, even with the greatest temporal inconveniences; and if the fetus is viable, there is added another reason of preserving his temporal life.

The section is to be done provided three conditions are present:

1. that the mother be morally certainly dead, whence, in doubt, it is not to be done except after the testimony of an expert concerning death;

2. that it be probable that the fetus lives; hence no one is bound to it in the beginnings of pregnancy, in the first six weeks, or according to others, in the second or third month, because then the fetus is almost always dead, or at least it is very uncertain whether he will come forth living; yet it is to be done in the fourth month, especially if the woman has perished by sudden or very rapid death, unless grave reasons are present for thinking that the fetus died before the mother or with her;

3. that a suitable person be present who has sufficient expertise to complete the section without danger to the fetus; yet no one is bound to learn the art or mode, because to satisfy the precept no one is bound to employ means remotely, namely when the precept is not yet urgent.

The obligation a) first regards the physician or surgeon, who is to be induced to do it even if he says the offspring is already dead, because in this matter they are accustomed to proceed rather lightly and to speak in this way so that they may not do the section;

b) but if he refuses or cannot be present, let anyone else suitable for this approach, as for example a midwife: for the precept of charity in extreme necessity of itself obliges all; concerning which therefore the priest should admonish, unless very grave inconveniences are feared;

c) but upon others, especially relatives, it is incumbent to take care that the section be done;

d) if others are lacking, the priest does not seem certainly bound to perform the section, both because of frequent lack of expertise, and because of indecency, and especially because of danger of scandal and of a greater evil from the slanders, hatred, and calumnies of enemies of religion: for the common good must be cared for, and the scandal of many avoided, more than the salvation of one infant procured (Holy Office, December 13, 1899); for which reason missionaries should abstain among the Chinese from demanding and carrying out the section (Holy Office, February 15, 1780). Yet these reasons do not hold for all circumstances, for example if the Catholic family is discreet, or in the missions, nevertheless with the Chinese excepted; whence, according to many, the priest would of himself be bound: although this may seem truer, nevertheless we do not dare to say that it is certain.³

³ Many teach that the priest is bound, such as Cangiamila, Debreyne, the Theologia Mechliniensis, Vering, Konings, Lehmkuhl; yet others deny it, such as Bouvier, Gousset, Marres, Berardi. The mode of doing the Caesarean operation is indicated in Dens, Theol. Mechl., Aertnijs, and in Antonelli, Medicina pastoralis, I, n. 446.

It should be noted that there is no doubt that the fetus can survive the mother for an hour, indeed for several hours. But so that the life of the infant may more easily be preserved, the uterus of the deceased mother is to be covered with cloths, so that it may retain warmth; but to open the mother's mouth, lest the infant perish from lack of respiration, is of no utility, because he does not breathe through the mother.

156. Observations. - 1. Baptism in the womb of the mother, the membranes first having been broken if this is possible, is conferred by means of some irrigating instrument, for example a small siphon full of water, or with some sponge, but with the other hand one must investigate whether the water touches a part of the infant; - but if these means are lacking, it is conferred by the moistened hand alone, although that mode is easily doubtful (Holy Office, December 14, 1898). Warm or tepid water should be used, because cold water would harm the mother; indeed, when from pure water a true danger of death in the mother is to be feared, it can be mixed with corrosive mercuric bichloride, one part of this chloride dissolved in a thousand parts of water, as we know from the response of the Holy Office, August 21, 1901.

2. The ministry is ordinarily to be performed by a physician, or, if he is lacking, by a midwife, who is to be taught by a physician or by the pastor.

3. The pastor is to be informed concerning Baptism conferred in this way (can. 778).

161. State of the question. - A monster is a fetus in which the species of the human body is totally or notably deformed; an ostentum is properly called that which only has members multiplied or diminished or otherwise deformed, although among moralists it is also comprehended under the general name of monster. Monsters are some simple, others joined (double or multiple), according as one individual, or two or perhaps several individuals, are present adhering to one another.

Monsters which do not present a human species but a beastly one were formerly thought to arise from intercourse of a woman with brute animals, and therefore were not baptized, as the Ritual said, tit. 2, c. 1, n. 19: "a monster which does not present the human species is not to be baptized." Today physiologists entirely deny conception from coitus with brutes, and attribute the beastly species to the imagination of the woman or to a defect of formation; hence living monsters are generally considered to be men, and therefore are to be baptized, as the Ritual now prescribes in the new edition, n. 22, after the Code (can. 748). They are to be baptized absolutely if they certainly live and have a human species; - but if they bear a bestial species, at least conditionally, because before the end of the third month the species perhaps could have been deformed, so that it was never human, and consequently, according to the opinion of later animation, a rational soul never came to it, but only a sensitive soul is present.

162. Principles. - I. As to simple monsters: they are to be baptized absolutely if they have a human head or one nearer to human; under condition, if you are a man, if they have a beastly head.

Applied correction from Woywod's opening insert: CASE LXXIII is solved authoritatively by Canon 746 of the Code which lays down rules for various circumstances of difficult child birth and the baptism of the endangered child. (1) The infant enclosed in the mother's womb shall not be baptized as long as there is probable hope to baptize it after birth. (2) If the head of the child appears and the danger of death is imminent, it shall be baptized on the head and must not be baptized again conditionally when the child is born alive. (3) If any other limb appears first and there is danger of immediate death the child should be baptized conditionally on that limb. In that case when the child is born alive it shall be baptized again conditionally. (4) If the mother dies before the child is born, those whose duty it is shall see to it that the fetus is extracted from the womb and if it is certain that the child is alive it shall be baptized absolutely, if life is doubtful it shall be baptized conditionally, viz., "si vivis." (5) If the fetus was baptized in the womb (which might have been attempted by means of some instrument), it shall when born alive be baptized again conditionally.

^* By J. Rieder, D.D.

In the Roman Ritual we find among the instructions preceding the baptismal rite (tit. II. cap. I. n. 16), the direction: Nemo in utero matris clausus baptizari debet. This sentence may attract notice, as it appears to contradict that which now is universally taught in moral and pastoral theology.

There may be asked two questions, viz.: 1. Is it allowed, or even an obligation, to baptize an infant still in the mother's womb, if otherwise there is danger of the infant dying without Baptism? And presuming that by such Baptism the applicatio materiae was possible, and that also the forma was correctly used, the second question would be: Is such Baptism valid?

It is universally taught at present, in regard to the first question, that it is allowed, and even obligatory, in a case of necessity to baptize the infant in the mother's womb. The second question Gury answers: (Theol. Mor. pars II. n. 239): More probably affirmative, if the child is touched with water in the mother’s womb by means of some instrument, because such an infant, since he now exists as a human being in the state of pilgrimage, can validly be baptized. Considering the matter theoretically, I think a more positive statement should be made as follows: Such Baptism is without doubt valid, provided the applicatio materiae properly took place. For with this provision I see no reason why the validity of the Baptism can be at all doubtful. “For the subject of baptism is every human being in the state of pilgrimage who has not yet been baptized.” In these cases, however, it will generally remain somewhat uncertain whether the applicatio materiae properly took place, and for this reason already there would pro praxi be advisable a conditional repetition of the Baptism if the infant subsequently be born alive. This is indeed decreed by a decision of the Sacred Congregation, of the 12th July, 1794, in which the conditional repetition of a Baptism administered in the womb is ordained in these words: A fetus baptized on the crown of the head in the womb is, after birth, to be baptized again conditionally.

If, however, the conditional repetition of the Baptism would be argued by appeal to the sentence: One who has not been born cannot be reborn, i. e., in order that one may be re-born, he must first of all be born, we can not agree with this argument for intrinsic reasons, and we will show below how this sentence, frequently met within ancient writers, has frequently been misunderstood.

With a clearness and precision all his own, Lehmkuhl thus expresses himself (Theol. Mor. II. 74): There can scarcely be doubt about the validity of baptism conferred upon an infant in the mother’s womb if the infant’s head, wholly freed from the afterbirth, can be touched with water either by means of an instrument or otherwise. Yet there are some who think that a human being must first be a separate member of external human society before he can be baptized. Therefore, although, considered theoretically, scarcely any reason for doubting the validity of the baptism presents itself, nevertheless, because the Sacred Congregation of the Council, on 12 July 1794, in the case of Sutrina, said that a baptism which had been conferred upon an infant in this manner was to be repeated conditionally, the authority of the Sacred Congregation prevents us from declaring such a baptism altogether certain. Therefore, in danger it is certainly to be conferred in this way; but afterward, if the infant comes forth alive from the womb, it is to be repeated conditionally.

Similarly, but more pointedly, is the matter put by the Analecta Ecclesiastica (of April, 1896): It is indeed accepted by all that, when birth is imminent, an infant may be baptized with the due application of matter and form even though it is entirely hidden in the mother’s womb, and that nothing can be brought forward either from the Scriptures or from Tradition which demonstrates such a baptism to be ineffectual, even probably. There is, therefore, no doubt whatever in regard to the validity of such Baptism in itself. Before going further, we wish to comment on the words of Lehmkuhl: “If the infant’s head, wholly freed from the afterbirth (membrane or caul),... can be touched with water.” In order to speak of the validity without doubt of such Baptism, this condition is under all circumstances required and indispensable. Gury, it is true, holds (l. c.): Nor is it an objection that the child is still enveloped in the afterbirth, because this is, as it were, a part of the infant, and considers, therefore, the Baptism even probabilius valid, in case the infant is still enclosed in this caul. But here we must give ear to the physicians. The very reliable Dr. Capellmann (Pastoral Medicine, p. 139); protests against this view of Gury's, by reason of the results of the history of development. "The caul," he says, "is not at all in its totality a pars infantis. The caul consists, until birth, of three plainly distinguishable, even separable, teguments. The two inner teguments, the amnion and chorion, may be considered part of the infantile body, inasmuch as they are produced by the embryo itself. The outside tegument, however, the so-called decidua, originates from the mucus of the womb (uterus), and therefore belongs to the mother's body; and can not be regarded at all as pars infantis. It follows that the Baptism of an infant enveloped in this caul or veil can only be of very doubtful validity."

If, however, it will be asked, Baptism in such cases, according to the teaching of theologians, can and must be administered puero in utero matris, and if no doubt can exist as to the validity of the Baptism itself, what meaning can be attributed to the words of the Rituale: Nemo in utero matris clausus baptizari debet?

In order to give a satisfactory answer, we shall have to view the question from the historical standpoint.

In the above discussion we have only learned the present teaching of theologians, but it must be mentioned that to the question utrum puer in utero matris clausus could be baptized, the ancient writers gave an answer entirely different. From the time of Petrus Lombardus to that of Gabriel Biel (+1495) they all answered this question with one accord—negatively. They do so with recourse to St. Augustine, and to the part of the Corpus Juris (cap. Qui maternis dist. 4 de Consecratione), which says: “Because one who has not been born according to Adam cannot be regenerated according to Christ. Hence the rule: One who has not been born cannot be reborn.”

Let us select from the number of these writers the Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas. He deals with our question in the third part of his Summa (quaest. 68 art. 11). under the head Whether children situated in their mothers’ wombs are to be baptized?

First of all he states, in accordance with his method, some reasons which appear to favor the administration of such Baptism; for instance, that the grace of Christ must be more efficacious than sin, and since these infants are stained with original sin, therefore it seems there must be a possibility of imparting to them the grace of Christ, by Baptism. Furthermore, it seems that such infant is part of the mother; that if, therefore, one baptized the mother, all that within her would be simultaneously baptized. Contrary to this view, St. Thomas goes on to say, is what St. Augustine wrote in his letter to Dardanus: “No one is reborn unless he is first born.” But baptism is a certain spiritual regeneration. Therefore no one ought to be baptized before he is born from the womb; and the conclusio reads: Since the body of an infant existing in the mother’s womb cannot be washed with water, it is clear that an infant cannot be baptized in the mother’s womb. Entering into the merit of the question itself, St. Thomas then adds: I answer that it must be said that it is necessary for baptism that the body of the person to be baptized be washed in some manner with water, since baptism is a certain washing. The body however, of the infant, before it is born from the womb, cannot in any manner be washed with water; unless perhaps it be said that the baptismal washing by which the mother’s body is washed reaches the child existing in the womb. But this cannot be, both because the child’s soul, to whose sanctification baptism is ordered, is distinct from the mother’s soul, and because the body of the ensouled child is already formed and consequently distinct from the mother’s body; and therefore the baptism by which the mother is baptized does not overflow to the offspring existing in her womb. Hence Augustine.... And so it remains that infants existing in their mothers’ wombs cannot be baptized in any manner.

Thus St. Thomas, and with him agree the theologians of the following centuries; even Billuart (+1757) remarks to this: It seems more probable that, in the case proposed, the infant can be baptized neither lawfully nor validly. This is the opinion of all the ancients and, among the more recent authors, Habert, Gotti, Tournely, Berti, etc., against certain other more recent authors.

It will not escape the reader's attention that St. Thomas and the other ancient theologians viewed this question differently from St. Augustine; Thomas and the others considered it impossible that the materia baptismi could be applied to an infant in the mother's womb. It always occurred to them, that because of the inability to reach the infant, the mother would again be baptized with the intention of thereby imparting the grace of the Sacrament to the infant, and this they considered perfectly inoperative. Hence their dictum that infants in the mother's womb can neither be lawfully nor validly baptized. Progress in medical science on the one hand and experience on the other has taught us, that it is quite possible, especially instante partu, and not even difficult, to apply the water of regeneration to infants in the mother's womb, and consequently the answer to our question has become a different one.

For the first time this more recent view of the case is met with in Biel's writings, who says: It must be said briefly that a child cannot be baptized in the mother’s womb, because in the mother’s womb he cannot be washed or touched.... But if, as some hold, the child still hidden in the mother’s womb, although joined to the mother, were washed or wiped with water touching his body, with the due intention and form, the child would truly be baptized and saved. (In IV. dist. IV. q. 2 art. 3 dub. 2.)

Similarly Diana and Laymann express themselves. In the middle of the seventeenth century Pignatelli wrote, at Rome, in this sense, and he stated that the Cardinal Vicar caused a thorough examination of the obstetrices, to ascertain if and how in these cases the applicatio materiae was possible. As a result of this examination the Cardinal Vicar adopted this new view and put it into practice. P. Qualdus defends this opinion most strongly and elaborately in his work which appeared at Padua in 1710. In an interesting and lucid manner Benedict XIV treats our question in his work De Synodo Diocesana (lib. VII. cap. 5). There is no doubt whatever, he first remarks, that an infant can not be baptized in the mother's womb, if it is impossible to apply the water, and it would be heretical to hold that the infant would participate in the Sacrament, when administered to the mother in its stead, as already explained by St. Augustine (lib. 6 Contra Julianum c. 5), and as St. Thomas also teaches. But the question, the learned Pope continues, is a different one; it is: Whether, when the opening of the mother’s womb has been opened, as happens at the beginning of labor, an infant whose little body, although no part of it has come forth into the light, can nevertheless be touched with water, at least through a small tube, is validly baptized. It is quite remarkable, he states, how theologians differ on this subject, and he names those who are pro, as well as those who are contra. He himself sides with those who are pro tali baptismo and refutes the opponent's arguments. No final decision having been rendered by the Church he considers it the duty of pastors, for this reason, to instruct the midwives, that in such cases they should baptize conditionally, and likewise that in the event of the infant being born alive baptism should be conditionally repeated.

The opponents of the lawfulness and validity of such Baptism support their argument by two reasons. Firstly, they say, it is not possible to apply the materia Sacramenti, and secondly they quote the words of Christ: Unless a man be born again (John iii) and deduce therefrom with recurrence to St. Augustine and the Corpus Juris, that man must first be born before he can be regenerated by water and the Holy Ghost.

As far as the first reason is concerned, that is settled by the opinion and experience of the physicians. In regard to the second reason, St. Augustine, to be sure, repeatedly advances this argument, but, as Benedict XIV says, the context plainly shows that the holy doctor intended only to show the uselessness and invalidity of a Baptism administered to the mother and intended for the infant.

This is the purpose and the meaning of the passage of the Gratian Decree. This is also exactly the case with St. Thomas who, as shown by the quoted words, only answers in the negative sense because he considered it impossible that the infant could be reached with water. The passage in St. John (c. iii) finally must be taken and understood in its logical sense, and an exegesis, in which the words are taken literally, has no value. How far from the intention of the Church herself is such a narrow exegesis, may be seen by her action in presenting to our veneration, on the 31st August, a saint with the surname Nonnatus. We read in the Breviary also of St. Aloysius seemed to be born for heaven before being born for earth. Should this not suffice, we might, as Benedict XIV (l. c.) writes, with a certain right consider him as born, who from the more hidden recesses of the mother’s womb descends to the opening of the womb and is handled by the midwife’s hands.” Indeed the Church herself ordains (Rituale R. tit. II. c. 1, 16): If the infant has put forth its head and danger of death is imminent, let it be baptized on the head; and afterward, if it survives, it is not to be baptized again. In this case, too, the nativitas has not taken place completely, and yet it is not required that this Baptism be repeated, not even conditionally.

We believe we have proved that appeal can be made neither to the Holy Scriptures, nor to tradition, nor to the teaching of the Church, in order to argue for the unlawfulness and invalidity of the Baptism in utero matris; on the contrary, A child still existing in the mother’s womb can, when necessity presses, be baptized lawfully and validly; nevertheless, it must be baptized again conditionally if it comes forth alive into the light; this appears to follow from the response of the Sacred Congregation dated 12 July 1794. We say "fluere videtur," for this decision of the Congregation though a precedent for judging similar cases, is not a strict universal law, it was applied to an individual case and even if the physician asserted that he most certainly sprinkled the infant's head with water, it may still be thought that the Congregation did not place implicit belief in this assertion, and for this reason ordained the conditional repetition of the Baptism. If, therefore, some one should not take this answer of the Congregation to be a general strict command to repeat the Baptism in every case, he would not appear to be altogether without reason. There seems to result from the decision quoted the fact that in every such case Baptism may be repeated conditionally. And it will be the safe way to do it in every case.

We return at last to our question: What do the words of the Rituale mean: Nemo utero matris clausus baptizari debet, what is the sense of these words? It appears that these words should be supplemented by the apposition: absque necessitate, and the meaning would be: As a general rule it is prohibited to baptize an infant in the mother's womb, except in case where there exists danger that the infant will not be born alive, and would, therefore, die without Baptism. Yet this explanation does not seem to fit very well, for in the same chapter of the Rituale such emergency and extraordinary cases are already discussed.

Hence we believe these words of the Rituale are to be taken in the meaning of the ancient writers so that they may be paraphrased somewhat in the manner following: No one enclosed in the mother’s womb ought to be baptized, because an infant so hidden in the womb that no part of it can be touched with water cannot be baptized in any manner, nor would it benefit the infant in any way if the mother’s body were washed in its place. The Rituale here, still from the standpoint of the ancient theologians, only rejects the heretical opinion, that a child reposing entirely in the mother's womb may have to it imparted the grace of regeneration, by rebaptizing the mother. The question, however, as at present answered by theologians, regarding the lawfulness and validity of Baptism properly administered in such an extraordinary case, the Rituale does not take up.