131. Culpable, absolute, and public repetition of baptism induces irregularity.¹

1. Repetition of baptism: for from the repetition of other non-repeatable sacraments, namely confirmation and order, no irregularity is incurred, because none is expressed in law.

2. Culpable: for where there is no fault, irregularity from delict is not incurred; therefore one who rebaptizes from ignorance either of law, namely that repetition of baptism is prohibited, or of fact, namely that baptism had already been conferred, does not become irregular.

3. Absolute: for the words of penal law are of strict interpretation; but one who does not baptize absolutely is not strictly said to baptize. Therefore one who rebaptizes under condition does not become irregular, even if he sins gravely, namely if rashly and without due investigation concerning the validity of the first baptism he baptizes again.

With Benedict XIV, authors commonly affirm that he becomes irregular who rebaptizes under condition where there is no reason for doubting the validity of the first baptism.² But the opinion denying irregularity in this case is probable, because this irregularity was established against the error of those rebaptizing; but by the condition added that error is excluded.³

4. Public,⁴ so that concerning each baptism, the conferral and the repetition, it is publicly established.

There are those who, for contracting irregularity from the crime of rebaptism, demand that the second baptism be solemn;⁵ nevertheless the text of law only says that it must be public. But in order that the repetition of baptism be public, it is required that each baptism be public.⁶

Note. This irregularity is not perfect, since according to the probable opinion of several authors it prohibits only the reception of further orders, but not likewise the exercise of orders received.⁷

¹ C. Confirmandum 65. dist. 50.

² De synodo l. 7. c. 6. n. 3.

³ Gasparri I. n. 329. D'Annibale, Summula I. n. 410.

⁴ C. Ex litterarum 2 De apostatis et reiterant. bap. (V. 9).

⁵ Salmanticenses tr. 10. c. 8. n. 60. 64. and St. Alphonsus n. 356.

⁶ Gasparri I. n. 324. D'Annibale, Summula I. n. 410.

⁷ Busembaum apud St. Alphonsus l. 6. n. 356. Lehmkuhl, Theol. m. II. n. 1006.

132. Persons who contract irregularity are: the one rebaptizing, those ministering to him from office, and those rebaptized.

1. The one rebaptizing and those ministering to him incur only partial irregularity, namely one impeding ascent to higher orders, but not the use of orders received; but the rebaptized person contracts total irregularity.

2. Only those ministers become irregular who minister from office, namely clerics; wherefore parents, sponsors, and any others who cooperate in the repetition of baptism do not become irregular.

3. In order that the rebaptized incur irregularity, they must be knowingly rebaptized: for where sin is not committed, penalty is not incurred. Wherefore only adults, but not infants who have been rebaptized, become irregular.

Irregularity is incurred not only from repetition, but also from unworthy reception of baptism, namely where an adult receives baptism from a declared heretic outside the case of necessity; but infants baptized by heretics in a heretical sect are not irregular.¹

¹ C. Placuit 3 and C. Qui apud 4. c. 1. q. 4.

55. Definition. 1. Baptism is a sacrament by which, through the washing of the body in water under the prescribed form of words, the grace of regeneration is conferred.

In this definition the first words, baptism is a sacrament, exhibit the generic note, in which all the sacraments agree; but the words which follow exhibit the note or specific difference by which this sacrament is distinguished from the others. Now two things constitute the specific difference: the matter and form of this sacrament, through the washing of the body in water under the prescribed form of words, and its peculiar effect, the grace of regeneration.

2. From baptism of water there is distinguished baptism of desire and baptism of blood.

a. Baptism of desire (or of the Holy Spirit) is charity or perfect contrition, in which there is contained the desire of receiving the sacrament of baptism in reality; but charity and perfect contrition have the force of conferring sanctifying grace. Nevertheless baptism of desire does not imprint a character, and in like manner it does not always destroy every guilt of venial fault and of temporal punishment, but according to the intensity of the act of love it remits now more, now less, and sometimes even all.

b. Baptism of blood is martyrdom endured for the sake of the faith. The holy Fathers everywhere affirm that martyrdom has the force of remitting every fault and every punishment, both in adults and in infants, appealing to the privilege which Christ conceded to martyrdom, namely that of producing the same effect of justification which baptism produces.² Martyrdom does not imprint the baptismal character, but it does bring about that every fault and punishment is destroyed.

3. Solemn baptism is distinguished, which is conferred with all the prescribed rites and ceremonies, while it does not matter whether it is administered in a church or in a private house; and private or non-solemn baptism, which is administered without rites and ceremonies. Cn. 737, 2.

Thus if one upon whom solemn baptism has been conferred is rebaptized under condition because of doubt concerning its validity, it is a private baptism. The most frequent case in which baptism is conferred privately without rites and ceremonies is the case of necessity in danger of death; therefore private baptism is ordinarily called baptism of necessity (Nottaufe).

¹ St. Thomas III, q. 66-71; St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 94-160; Sporer-Kazenberger, Supplementum theologiae moralis sacramentalis, c. 1, sect. 1-4; Gobat, Theologia experimentalis de sacramentis, tract. 2, De baptismo; Tamburini, Explicatio moralis de sacramentis, c. 2, De baptismo; Ballerini-Palmieri IV, n. 717-784; Lehmkuhl, Theologia moralis, II, n. 55-88 (n. 75-119); Genicot, Theologiae moralis institutiones, II, n. 127-158; Gassner, Pastoral (Salzburg: Mittermuller, 1881), cap. 13.

² Cf. De principiis^13, n. 282.

56. Effects. The effect of this sacrament is fourfold: a. remission of every sin, both original and personal, committed before baptism; b. remission of every punishment, not only eternal but also temporal; c. infusion of sanctifying grace, of gifts, and of sacramental grace, which is the right to all those actual graces by which the baptized person can lead a Christian life; d. impression of character, by which a baptized man becomes a member of the Church, of the mystical body of Christ, and capable of the other sacraments.¹ But the disposition necessary in an adult who has committed personal sins, for obtaining these effects, besides faith, is attrition concerning the sins committed.

Wherefore it can happen that in an adult not every fault nor every punishment is immediately remitted: for since punishment cannot be remitted where fault has not yet been remitted, and since fault is not remitted without attrition, if an adult approaches baptism without attrition for some venial sin with which he is burdened, this is not remitted in baptism; but after sorrow has afterward been elicited, by force of the baptism received the sin is destroyed both as to fault and as to punishment.

¹ Cf. Council of Trent, sess. 5, can. 5.

57. Necessity. 1. Baptism (of water), received in reality or at least in desire, is necessary by a (hypothetical) necessity of means for salvation: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."¹

That is said to be necessary for salvation by necessity of means which is a means of obtaining eternal salvation so necessary that, if it is omitted even without fault, salvation is not obtained. This necessity is called absolute if the necessary means cannot be supplied by any other means; and it is called hypothetical if in certain conditions it can be supplied by another means. Therefore the necessity of baptism is hypothetical, because in circumstances in which baptism cannot be received in reality, it can be supplied by another means.²

2. In infants the sacrament of baptism can be supplied by nothing except martyrdom; therefore, except in the case of martyrdom, for them the sacrament received in reality is necessary. But in adults, besides martyrdom, the sacrament of baptism can also be supplied by baptism of desire; therefore for an adult who cannot receive baptism in reality, excepting the case of martyrdom, the sacrament received at least in desire is necessary.

The desire of baptism is called the act of perfect charity or perfect contrition, because in this act the desire of baptism is contained: for he who elicits an act of this kind has the will of doing all things which God has commanded; but God commands all to receive baptism; therefore he has the will of receiving baptism. Therefore he who elicits an act of charity or contrition has at least implicitly the desire of baptism. Yet cf. n. 41, 4.

¹ John 3, 5.

² Cf. De praeceptis^12, n. 7.

58. The valid remote matter of baptism is only natural water, which is such both in itself and in the common estimation of men. This is clear from the words of Sacred Scripture: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit," etc.¹ We know from the definition of the Church that these words are to be understood of true and natural water.² Therefore what water is to be held as valid matter must be taken not so much from the analysis of chemists as from the use and estimation of men; for when Christ determined the matter of the sacraments, he spoke according to the notions of the people and common sense.

Matter certainly valid is: a. water of springs, wells, rivers, the sea, ponds, marshes, lakes, cisterns; b. rainwater, distilled water, water produced by chemical art, water dissolved from ice, snow, or hail; c. sulphurous or mineral water, water collected from vapor, dew, or flowing in stormy weather from a wall, leaves, etc.; d. muddy water mixed with another substance, provided water is truly and certainly the predominant matter, even if it has been altered as to color, odor, or taste. Nor does it matter whether the water is cold or warm.

Matter certainly invalid is: a. milk, blood, spittle; b. wine, oil, beer, thick broth from fat, etc.; c. mud, ink; d. juice expressed from fruits, e.g., apples, pears, etc.; for all these are neither in fact nor in name water; e. tears, sweat, saliva; for these are indeed water in fact, but not in name nor in the common estimation of men.

Matter doubtful is: a. very thin broth, lye, very thin beer, a drink made from the coffee bean or from tea leaves, water from dissolved salt; b. the fluid flowing from a vine and other plants; c. rose-water or other liquids expressed from plants; d. snow or ice not yet dissolved. For although in this state they are not natural water, nevertheless, since they are dissolved by contact, and thus some washing can be had, they are admitted by some as doubtful matter.

¹ John 3, 5. Cf. Acts 8, 36.

² Council of Trent, sess. 7, can. 2, De bapt.

59. The licit remote matter. Having made the distinction between solemn baptism, private baptism, and baptism of necessity (n. 55), let this be by way of rule: in any baptism whatever consecrated water is to be preferred, but it is not prescribed in every baptism; rather, lustral water (blessed water), or even natural water (not blessed), can be used, even if consecrated water is present. Therefore:

1. In solemn baptism the licit matter is only consecrated and clean water without admixture of foreign matter.

2. In private baptism it is suitable that consecrated water be used, if it is present, or at least lustral or blessed water; nevertheless neither a priest nor a layman sins who uses natural water, even if consecrated or blessed water is present, unless this is prescribed by diocesan statute (as in England).

3. In baptism of necessity, i.e., in danger of death, any matter whatever can and ought to be used, provided it is not certainly invalid, under this condition: if this matter is valid. But if he who has been baptized with matter of this kind survives, and there is certainly valid matter available, he must again be baptized under this condition: if he has not been baptized. Just as for conferring baptism under the first condition a slight probability concerning the validity of the matter suffices, so for rebaptizing under the other condition a slight probability concerning the invalidity of the baptism suffices: for it is a question of a sacrament most necessary.

a. Although a slight admixture of a foreign substance does not render the water of baptism invalid matter, nevertheless that water, whether it is consecrated or not consecrated, must, out of reverence for the sacrament, be clean from foreign substance, unless there is an excusing cause. Therefore, if in a case of necessity infants are to be baptized in the mother's womb, it is permitted to use water mixed with corrosive bichloride of mercury (one part of mercuric chloride with a thousand parts of water) (Quecksilberchlorid, Sublimat), when from pure water a true danger of disease in the mother is to be feared; but it is not permitted to use it when there is no danger of disease in the mother.¹

b. He sins gravely who, outside a case of necessity, uses turbid, muddy, or miry water, even if it is valid matter, because he gravely injures the reverence due to the sacrament.

c. Water simply blessed, not consecrated, although it is valid matter, is nevertheless gravely illicit in solemn baptism outside a case of necessity. If in a case of necessity consecrated water is lacking, blessed water must be used (made according to the shorter formula, if this can be done; otherwise natural water must be used).²

d. If the consecrated water itself, which is kept in the baptismal font, appears full of dregs and foul-smelling, in a case of necessity pure unconsecrated water must be taken, or, if it is present, lustral or blessed water, even if the foul water is valid matter. Outside a case of necessity new water must be blessed according to the formula prescribed in the Roman Ritual.³

e. If the water of baptism is too cold, it can be warmed by being brought to the fire or furnace, or even a little warmed natural water can be mixed with it, lest the cold water harm the little child. If the parents ask that the infant be baptized with Jordan water which they have procured for themselves, a small quantity of that water can be mixed with the consecrated water.

f. In baptisms which in some regions are held at home against the prescription of the Church, consecrated water must be used; for baptisms of this kind, which are performed by priests outside a case of necessity with all the sacred ceremonies, have the character of solemn baptism.

¹ Holy Office, 21 Aug. 1901.

² Holy Office, 22 June 1883.

³ Holy Office, 17 Apr. 1839.

60. On the consecration of baptismal water. 1. From the prescription of the Church, the water of baptism must be consecrated on the vigil of Easter and on the vigil of Pentecost.¹ This obligation is judged grave, because it is of great importance that in solemn baptism water consecrated by a special blessing for this end, and mixed with the oil of catechumens and sacred chrism, be used.

Therefore, according to the mind of the Church, it must be judged an abuse to be entirely eliminated if the consecration of the baptismal font is omitted on the Saturday of Pentecost.² Missionaries are commanded to consecrate water or to carry consecrated water with them whenever they can do this without grave inconvenience.³ Lest baptismal water ever be lacking, it can be prepared at any time when necessity demands it, but according to the formula which is found in the Roman Ritual.⁴ Even if the water consecrated at the prescribed time seems likely to run short, other unblessed water can be mixed with it, though in a smaller quantity.⁵

2. In the consecration of baptismal water: a. oils blessed by the bishop in the very same year on the Lord's Supper must be used. b. If a priest cannot obtain recent oils for himself, let him bless the font without the infusion of the sacred oils, which afterward, reciting privately the omitted prayers, he is to pour into the blessed water. c. But if, before he can receive the oils, he must baptize someone, in the solemn blessing itself let him pour in the old oils of the preceding year.⁶

¹ Roman Ritual, tit. 2, c. 1, n. 4.

² S. C. R., 7 Dec. 1844, n. 2878; 13 Apr. 1874, n. 3331.

³ S. C. de Prop. Fid., 8 Sept. 1869.

⁴ Roman Ritual, tit. 2, c. 1, n. 6, and c. 7.

⁵ Ibid., tit. 2, c. 1, n. 5. Cn. 757, 2.

⁶ S. C. R., 31 Jan. 1896, n. 3879.

61. The proximate matter of baptism is the washing of the body, which must be done by the minister himself in such a way that the baptized person, by the moral judgment of men, is considered truly washed; otherwise the words of the form would not be verified.

1. The washing can be done in three ways: by immersion, sprinkling, and pouring; nevertheless, according to the present practice of the Roman Church, baptism must be conferred by a threefold washing or pouring. And although one pouring suffices for validity, nevertheless a threefold pouring, at least where solemn baptism is concerned, is prescribed under grave obligation in the Roman Ritual.¹

2. Therefore, in order that the person to be baptized be considered truly washed, and thus that the baptism be certainly valid, it is required:

a. That the water flow; hence, if one or another drop of water only is used, which adheres to the skin without flowing, baptism is doubtful and licit only in a case of necessity.

alpha. Therefore he who applies a wet finger or hand, or a wet cloth, to the forehead merely by touching it, does not baptize validly, because he does not wash the infant. If someone baptizes by way of anointing on the forehead with the thumb moistened in baptismal water, the baptism is doubtful, because there is no true washing.² But he who successively touches the forehead of the person to be baptized with a wet hand or cloth, according to the common opinion of authors, certainly baptizes validly, because there is true washing.³

beta. No determinate quantity of water is required for valid baptism; consequently there does not seem to be a reason for doubting the value of a baptism in which only one or another drop is used, provided the drops truly flow. Nevertheless, since several authors doubt concerning this baptism, it should be repeated under condition.

b. That it immediately touch the person to be baptized; hence, if the water touches the garments only, baptism is certainly invalid; and if it touches the hair only, baptism is in some degree doubtful.

alpha. Some used to say that baptism conferred upon the hair is valid, because, since the hair is part of the infant, the infant is washed whose hair is washed; others, on the contrary, affirmed that it was invalid, because the hairs are not part of the infant, and therefore the infant is not washed whose hairs are washed. But now it can scarcely be denied that the hairs truly are part of a man, just as nails truly are a part of a man, although they are not informed by the soul. Hairs in a man are situated as wool is in sheep or feathers in birds; but we say that a sheep or a bird is washed when its wool or feathers are washed. Therefore, although the value of this baptism is almost certain, nevertheless, since several and great authors, after considering the internal reasons, doubt concerning its value, it can and must be repeated under condition.⁴ But if the head of the infant is covered with hair, the priest, baptizing upon the hair, must, while with the right hand he pours water upon the crown of the head, part the hair with the left hand, or take care that the water flow down over the temples of the head.

beta. Baptism conferred upon the afterbirth is invalid. - Until birth the infant is enveloped in a covering composed of three membranes entirely distinct. The outer membrane, which is called the decidua, is formed from the interior part of the uterus, and therefore by no reckoning can it be held as part of the infant. And upon this, indeed, water is poured if the infant is baptized upon the afterbirth. The two inner membranes, of which one is called the amnion and the other the chorion, but which are commonly called the afterbirth, arise from the egg and therefore in some way can be called part of the infant; but they constitute by no means an integral part of the infant, but his covering to be cast off in birth. Therefore baptism can validly be conferred neither upon the decidua nor upon the afterbirth.⁵

gamma. Baptism conferred upon a head covered with an ulcerous crust is valid; for the crust upon which the water is poured is nothing other than the skin of the infant foully disfigured by disease. Therefore he is said to wash the infant who washes his head covered with a crust; otherwise a man whose whole head is covered with smallpox could neither be washed nor validly baptized.

delta. Baptism conferred on an infant upon a head still covered with filth before washing is valid; for by the fact that water is poured upon the filth, the head of the infant is said to be washed, which indeed is washed precisely in order that it may be cleansed from filth.

c. That it be poured upon the head; for in order that the person to be baptized be considered washed, it is not necessary that the whole body be washed, but it suffices and is required that the head be washed. Therefore if water is poured upon a less principal part (hand, foot, arm, etc.), the baptism is more probably invalid; and if it is poured upon a more principal part (breast, neck, shoulders), it is most probably valid, yet always at least somewhat doubtful. Therefore, if it can be done, it must or at least can be repeated under condition.

alpha. There are some who say that baptismal water must be poured upon the crown of the person to be baptized, but this is prescribed nowhere. On the contrary, in order to exclude doubts concerning the value of a baptism which is conferred on the crown of an infant whose head is covered with hair, it is better to baptize on the forehead.

beta. Baptism conferred on a more principal part (neck, breast, shoulders), according to the very common opinion of doctors of great name (Busenbaum, Suarez, Holzmann, Tanner, Lacroix, etc.), is valid; nor does St. Alphonsus seriously doubt concerning its validity, since he does not say that baptism conferred in this way must be repeated, but only that it can licitly be repeated for greater caution (n. 107, q. 4). And indeed, a man washed on such a part is said simply to be washed, just as one wounded there is said simply to be wounded. From this it follows that repetition of baptism conferred on the neck or on the breast can safely be omitted where it cannot be performed without difficulty.

gamma. If someone pronounces the form while an infant slips into water, the baptism is invalid, because he who baptizes does not himself wash the infant.

delta. If someone places a child under water flowing by nature, e.g., falling rain, he baptizes validly, because he truly washes the person to be baptized, and indeed he does it himself. But if he places the child under water poured out by another man, a distinction must be made: if for baptizing he uses water which another pours out either for another end or only so that by pouring out water he may help the one baptizing, the baptism is valid, because there is one who baptizes; but if he knowingly uses water which another pours out for this end, that he may help the one baptizing by applying the matter, the baptism is invalid, because one applies the matter and another pronounces the form.

epsilon. Whether baptism is valid if someone throws an infant into water and at the same time pronounces the form. - It is valid, and in a case of extreme necessity, namely when otherwise the infant is going to die without baptism, it seems even licit. And it is valid indeed, because there is washing equally as in baptism conferred by immersion, and there is no necessity that emergence follow immersion. But it is licit because there is not a direct killing of the infant, but a direct immersion for conferring baptism, from which by accident the death of the infant follows; for he who submerges an infant, not with the will of killing but of baptizing, is not said directly to kill the infant, even if from the same action, beyond the intention, the death of the infant follows.⁶

eta. Concerning baptism conferred in the mother's womb there are some who doubt whether it is valid, both because he cannot be reborn who has not yet been born, and because an infant in the womb cannot be washed, since, being enveloped in the afterbirth, he cannot be immediately touched by water. Ballerini (ad n. 239) indeed judges such baptism certainly valid, both because an infant existing in the mother's womb is already a man in the wayfaring state and in some sense is already said to be truly born, and because he himself can be touched immediately by means of an instrument more recently invented. Nevertheless the value of this baptism is not so certain that the infant, if he is afterward born, ought not to be rebaptized under condition.⁷ But if the infant has put forth the head and danger of death is imminent, he is to be baptized on the head, and afterward, if he has escaped alive, he will not have to be baptized again.⁸

¹ Roman Ritual, tit. 2, c. 1, n. 4.

² Holy Office, 14 Dec. 1898.

³ Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 107.

⁴ Cf. Lugo, Responsa moralia, l. 1, dub. 1.

⁵ Cf. Capellmann, Medicina pastoralis, p. 106.

⁶ Cf. Ballerini-Palmieri IV, n. 720; Lehmkuhl II, 62 (n. 86).

⁷ S. C. C., 12 July 1794. As recently as 16 Mar. 1897 the same congregation commanded that baptism be repeated in this case.

⁸ Roman Ritual, tit. 2, c. 1, n. 16.

62. The form of baptism is: I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

In order that the form be valid, five things must be enunciated: a. the person who baptizes (at least implicitly); b. the person who is baptized; c. the act of baptizing with its essential effect; d. the unity of the divine nature, which is signified by the phrase in the name; e. the distinction of the persons, which are to be expressed by their proper names, and this distinction is signified by the particle and.

The form by which the Greeks baptize is valid: The servant of Christ is baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, because the person of the minister is implicitly contained in the word is baptized, which, since it assertively pronounces the sacramental action, has the same force as is baptized by me.

a. No one can validly baptize himself, because the person baptizing must be entirely distinct from the person to be baptized; for Christ, instituting baptism, manifestly distinguishes between the minister and the subject of baptism (baptizing them). Moreover, by saying I baptize myself the form would be substantially changed; finally, baptism is spiritual regeneration; therefore, just as no one can generate himself, so also no one can regenerate himself.¹

b. The word Amen, the omission of which St. Alphonsus had thought to be a venial sin, is not to be added to the form.²

c. In the form nothing can be omitted without its ceasing to be certainly valid, except the pronoun I, if baptism is conferred in a language in which, as in Latin, the verb without the pronoun determines the person of the minister; the particle and before the invocation of the Son;³ and the adjective Holy. All the rest is essential; therefore, if any of these were omitted, the form would be substantially changed.

d. Whether the words of the form in the name signify by the authority or under invocation or under profession is not certainly clear. From the fact that S. C. C. declared that this form, I baptize thee with the name of the Father, etc., used without evil intention, is valid, it seems to follow that in the name is the same as by the authority of the Father, etc.⁴

e. Whether several can be baptized at once with this form: I baptize you, etc. The baptism is indeed valid if the one baptizing himself pours or sprinkles the water at the same time and each one is truly washed; but it is illicit outside a case of necessity, namely where time is not sufficient for baptizing them individually.

¹ Cf. c. Debitum 4, De baptismo et eius effectu (III, 42).

² S. C. R., 9 June 1853, n. 3014.

³ S. C. C., 12 Sept. 1801, prohibited that baptism conferred with this form, I baptize thee in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, be repeated, even under condition.

⁴ Ballerini-Palmieri IV, n. 735.

63. Diverse forms of baptism. Forms of baptism which differ more or less from that which Christ instituted can be reduced to four classes: valid, invalid, doubtful, and ambiguous.

1. Valid are those in which certainly only an accidental change has place. He who uses a form of this kind baptizes validly and afterward must supply nothing; nevertheless he sins, but ordinarily only venially, because the change, as being accidental, is not grave, unless it is notable.

a. Valid are: I baptize your lordship in the name of the Father, etc. - I wash, I cleanse thee in the name, etc. - I baptize thee in the name of the Holy Spirit and of the Father and of the Son, because this transposition of words does not change the substantial sense of the form. - I baptize thee in the name of the unbegotten Father and of the only-begotten Son and of the Holy Spirit proceeding from both, because this addition does not corrupt the sense of the form, since of itself it is not apt to express an erroneous or heretical sense. - I baptize thee into the name (Greek: eis to onoma) of the Father, etc., both because this form renders word for word the Greek form of Sacred Scripture, and because it does not pour out an essentially different sense. - I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Spirit: for the omission of the word Holy does not change the sense of the form, since also in Sacred Scripture the third person of the most holy Trinity is called simply Spirit.¹

b. The Slavic peoples, who administer solemn baptism in the Slavic rite, use the word te krstim, and the English, who baptize in the vernacular language, use the word I christen, which words etymologically signify: I Christianize thee or make thee a Christian. Therefore, because these words of the form signify not the sacramental action but the effect of the sacrament, the form could seem invalid. Nevertheless there is no reason to doubt concerning the value of baptism conferred with this form; for from common use those words are employed in the conferral of baptism to signify the sacramental action itself, namely the sacred washing, which others express by the word I baptize.²

2. Invalid are forms in which either those things are not contained which must necessarily be expressed, or something false or heretical is contained. Baptism conferred with a form of this kind, as being certainly invalid, must be repeated absolutely.

Invalid are: I baptize thee in the name of the most holy Trinity - in the name of God one and triune - in the name of Jesus Christ, because the individual persons of the Trinity are not expressed.³ - I baptize thee in the names of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, because the divine essence is multiplied. - I baptize thee in the Father and in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, with in the name omitted, because this form multiplies the divine essence or at least does not clearly signify its unity. - I will to minister to thee the sacrament of baptism in the name, etc., because there is not expressed the present act of baptizing, but the will of baptizing.⁴

3. Doubtful are forms concerning which it is not certainly clear either that they exhibit all the things which must necessarily be expressed, or that they contain something false or heretical. Baptism conferred with a form of this kind must be repeated under condition, because its value is doubtful.

Doubtful are: I baptize thee in the power, in the majesty of the Father, etc., because it indeed signifies baptism to be conferred by the authority of the Father, etc., but does not signify clearly enough baptism to be conferred under invocation of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. - I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son, the Holy Spirit (with and omitted), because the last words of themselves seem rather to signify a property of the Son than a distinct person, especially if and is inserted before the name of the Son. - I baptize thee in the name of the begetter and of the begotten and of the breathed (or proceeding), because the persons of the Trinity are indeed exhibited by proper names, but not by those by which they are commonly wont to be signified; yet from the institution of Christ these names probably must be used.⁵ - I baptize thee in the name of our Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, because the word Father in the form of baptism signifies the person of the Father, who is Father with respect to the Son; the added word our causes it to signify the creator of all without respect to the Son, and consequently without distinction of persons.⁶

4. Ambiguous are forms which necessarily are neither invalid nor doubtful, and which therefore of themselves can be taken both in a fitting sense and also in a false or heretical sense. The value of baptism conferred with a form of this kind depends on the intention of the one baptizing; therefore it is not to be repeated if the one baptizing subjected nothing false or heretical to the words of the form; but it must be repeated absolutely if the one baptizing took the words of the form in a false or heretical sense.

Ambiguous are: I baptize thee in the name of the Father and in the name of the Son and in the name of the Holy Spirit, because the repetition of the term in the name does not necessarily signify a multiplication of the divine essence, although in the name, namely of the most holy Trinity, is repeated twice.⁷ - I baptize thee in the name of God the Father and of God the Son and of God the Holy Spirit, because this repetition no more signifies a multiplication of the divine essence than the repetition of the term in the name, especially since the unity of the essence is sufficiently expressed by the term in the name.⁸ - I baptize thee by name or with the name of the Father and of the Son, etc.⁹

Note. In order that the sacramental form be valid, it is required that the words of themselves be apt to signify that which Christ instituted, and that the minister intend to signify this very thing. If the minister intends to signify something else, the sacrament is invalid, even if the words are the very same words which Christ instituted. Hence a private error of the minister does not impede the value of the sacrament, provided the words both of themselves and from the intention (at least prevailing) of the minister signify that which Christ intended (n. 15). From these things it is deduced that he baptizes invalidly who uses the legitimate form, yet intends to use it in another sense, if, e.g., by the word Father he did not will to signify the eternal Father, but a Father who is not eternal.¹⁰

¹ John 7, 39.

² Cf. Lugo, Responsa moralia, l. 1, dub. 3; Pesch, Praelect. dogm., VI, n. 396.

³ Nor should it be said that the apostles baptized in the name of Jesus Christ: for where Sacred Scripture speaks of baptism conferred in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 8, 12; 19, 5), it does not signify the form by which baptism was conferred, but baptism itself of the Holy Spirit instituted by Christ, as it is distinguished from the baptism of penance of St. John. Indeed it is almost certain that the apostles baptized with the same form which Christ instituted, namely in the name of the most holy Trinity. Cf. Scherer, Uber die Taufe im Namen Jesu (Passauer Monatsschrift XII, 262 ff.).

⁴ Holy Office, 23 May 1840.

⁵ St. Thomas III, q. 66, a. 5, ad 7.

⁶ Cf. nevertheless Genicot, Casus, II, p. 143; Holy Office, 27 Jan. 1892.

⁷ Bonacina holds this form invalid, because through it there is signified not unity, but plurality of the divine essence; St. Alphonsus holds it as doubtful, because it is not clear that through it the divine essence is multiplied; the Holy Office, 13 Jan. 1882, declared it to be valid in itself, because of itself it does not necessarily signify plurality of the divine essence.

⁸ Cf. Bucceroni, Casus conscientiae^5, n. 111, 4.

⁹ S. C. C., several times (lastly 16 Aug. 1828), declared that this form, used without evil intention, is valid.

¹⁰ Cf. Lugo, disp. 2, n. 113 ff.

64. The minister of baptism is one thing if ordinary, another if extraordinary; and the extraordinary minister is one thing for solemn baptism, another for private baptism.

1. The extraordinary minister of private baptism is any human being having the use of reason, whether man or woman, whether Catholic or heretic, whether believer or unbeliever, who indeed always baptizes validly, but licitly only in a case of necessity and when the ordinary minister is lacking, as is clear from the doctrine and practice of the Church.

a. Nevertheless it is not licit for the father or mother to baptize their own child, except in danger of death, when no one else is present who may baptize. Cn. 742, 3.

b. A case of necessity is considered to be present if a man not yet baptized is in danger of death; but not if, because of distance, bad weather, or illness, a priest cannot be had except after a long time. Therefore in these circumstances the office of baptizing cannot be committed to a layman, always excepting danger of death.

c. Yet in mission places there is approved the custom by force of which, when a priest is absent, baptism is permitted to be administered immediately by catechists or other approved laymen to recently born infants, even those enjoying good health (although the priest is absent only for a short time), because the life of infants is exposed to continual dangers.¹

d. If in a case of necessity baptism is conferred privately, there are to be used, if it can be done, two witnesses or at least one, by whom the conferral of baptism can be proved. Cn. 742, 1.

2. The extraordinary minister of solemn baptism is the deacon, who nevertheless can licitly baptize solemnly only by delegation of the Ordinary or of the pastor, which is to be granted from a just cause. A sufficient cause on account of which the office of baptizing can be committed to a deacon is judged to be this: if the pastor is absent or sick, or if he is occupied with holding a sermon or hearing confessions, etc. If necessity presses, the permission is legitimately presumed.

a. Whether a deacon baptizes licitly in a case of lighter necessity, but without the commission of the pastor, is disputed. Suarez holds the affirmative opinion, because when necessity exists a reasonably presumed commission suffices.² The reason of St. Alphonsus, who holds the negative opinion (n. 116), is this: because a deacon can solemnly baptize only in place of the priest.

b. It is not licit for a deacon, even if he baptizes solemnly, to bless salt or water.³

c. A cleric lower than a deacon who solemnly baptizes incurs irregularity, because he exercises an order which he does not have. But a deacon who solemnly baptizes without commission indeed sins, because he injures the right of the pastor; yet he does not seem to incur irregularity, because he does not exercise an order which he does not have, since by force of ordination he can solemnly baptize.

3. The ordinary minister of solemn baptism is every and only priest, who nevertheless, except in a case of necessity, cannot licitly use his power unless he possesses the ordinary or delegated faculty for this.

a. Therefore a bishop can licitly baptize only those who have domicile or quasi-domicile in his diocese; and a pastor can licitly baptize only those who have domicile or quasi-domicile within the limits of his parish. But he cannot licitly baptize outsiders who do not have quasi-domicile in his parish without the permission of their own pastor, unless they are travelers or vagrants. Outside his parish he cannot licitly baptize his own parishioners without the permission of the pastor of the place.

b. Travelers ought to be baptized by their own pastor in his parish, if this can be done easily and without delay; otherwise they can be baptized by any pastor in his own territory. Therefore an infant whom a woman bears while staying outside her homeland, or whom a woman happens to bear in a place not her own, must be brought to his own pastor, unless he is far distant, or the infant is exposed to danger of life, or baptism for that reason would have to be deferred too long. Cn. 738, 1. Vagrants can be baptized by any pastor whom they themselves have chosen, if they are adults, or whom their parents have chosen, if they are infants.

c. Priests who without just cause baptize infants offered to them from another parish sin gravely, because they injure the right of the infant's own pastor. But when a just cause exists, an outside infant can licitly be baptized with the reasonably presumed permission of the infant's pastor. In the same way parents sin who outside a case of necessity or without the permission of the pastor bring their child to be baptized by other priests, because they violate the right of their own shepherd.

d. The baptism of adults, from the Roman Ritual and from the Code of Canon Law, is to be referred to the bishop, if this can conveniently be done.⁴ But in most dioceses it is laid down that no adult is to be baptized outside a case of necessity, not even under condition, without the permission of the Ordinary.

¹ S. C. de Prop. Fide, 11 Feb. 1804.

² Suarez, disp. 23, sect. 2, n. 10.

³ S. C. R., 10 Feb. 1888, n. 3684.

⁴ Roman Ritual, tit. 2, c. 3, n. 3. Cn. 744.

65. The order to be observed among diverse ministers in private baptism is thus described in the Roman Ritual: "If a priest is present, he is to be preferred to a deacon, a deacon to a subdeacon, a cleric to a layman, and a man to a woman, unless for the sake of modesty it is fitting that a woman rather than a man baptize an infant not wholly born, or unless the woman should know better the form and manner of baptizing."¹

"Nevertheless," says Lehmkuhl (n. 67 [93]), "this rule is understood in such a way that a. any believer existing in union with the Church, whether man or woman, provided he sufficiently knows the manner of baptizing, is altogether to be preferred to any heretic, even a priest; b. an outside woman is to be preferred to the father of the infant, since parents ought not to baptize their own infant except when another is lacking."

A layman who, contrary to this order, baptizes in the presence of a priest sins gravely, since to the priest alone does this faculty belong as proper by force of ordination; nor can a priest yield his own right, which belongs to him from divine institution, except by reason of decency, e.g., for baptizing a fetus in the mother's womb. But in other cases, to invert this order is free from grave fault, to such an extent that a layman baptizing in the presence of a deacon, according to a probable opinion, does not sin gravely.²

Question Fourth. On the Subject of Baptism

The subject capable of baptism is every and only wayfaring man not yet baptized. Every: because all need regeneration, as being infected with original sin. Only: because the sacraments were instituted for wayfaring men alone, and to them alone access into the Church lies open. Not yet baptized: for this sacrament can neither licitly nor validly be repeated. - We must treat: a. of infants to be baptized; b. of fetuses to be baptized; c. of adults to be baptized; d. of those to be baptized under condition.

¹ Roman Ritual, tit. 2, c. 1, n. 13. Cn. 742, 2.

² Cf. Suarez, disp. 31, sect. 4, n. 7 ff.

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

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

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

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

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

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

³ Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 118.

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

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

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

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

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

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

² Holy Office, 26 Aug. 1885.

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

⁴ S. C. de Prop. Fid., 20 Nov. 1672.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

³ Holy Office, 18 July 1894.

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

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

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

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

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

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

² Holy Office, 17 Sept. 1671.

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

70. On baptizing an abortive fetus. All abortive fetuses, even the smallest, are to be baptized, unless it is certainly clear that they are lifeless. For since they are probably human individuals placed in proximate danger of death, and baptism is absolutely necessary for them for salvation, the urgent obligation of baptizing them is evident. Cn. 747.

a. As soon as a human fetus is informed by a rational soul, he is a suitable subject of baptism. Although now among philosophers as well as theologians the opinion is almost common that the fetus lives by a rational soul from conception itself, nevertheless this opinion does not exceed probability. Still, the obligation of baptizing abortive fetuses is to be urged; for just as it is not licit to kill a probably animated fetus, so it is not licit to cast him away without baptism. For this reason physicians, midwives, and mothers are to be admonished, yet cautiously and prudently, concerning the obligation of baptizing even the smallest abortive fetuses, lest they be thrown away unbaptized.¹

b. If fetuses are very small, it can be very difficult to discern whether they are still living or have already lost life. For the unskilled there is no certain sign of death except putrefaction itself, which manifests itself by spots and foul odor. Therefore, unless a skilled physician testifies to certain death, even those fetuses which bear before them some sign of death are to be baptized.

c. Abortive fetuses already formed are to be baptized absolutely where they give certain signs of life, and they are to be baptized under condition if the signs of life are doubtful. But abortive fetuses not yet formed are to be baptized at least under condition (if thou art capable) and to be buried in a sacred place, whatever may be the form which they present, unless it is clear that they are lifeless.

d. Since fetuses of this kind are expelled enclosed in the afterbirth, they are to be baptized by immersion in a vessel filled with warm water, and in this way: the afterbirth is to be taken hold of with the index finger and thumb of both hands and cautiously opened in the water, so that the matter of the egg (amniotic fluid) may flow out and the water may wash the whole fetus, while the form is said: If thou livest, I, etc. For time must not be wasted in seeking signs of life, but if the egg appears fresh and the fetus white, he is to be baptized immediately.²

¹ Cf. Koelner Pastoralblatt: Die Taufe des Abortivfoetus, 1902, p. 9 ff.

² Capellmann, Medicina past., p. 115 note.

71. On baptizing a fetus not yet born. A fetus not yet born ought not to be baptized except in danger of death. But danger of death is imminent in three different cases: a. when, birth having already begun, some part of the infant has come forth into the light; b. when indeed no part of the infant appears, but, birth having already begun, the uterus has been opened, so that the infant can be washed by hand or by means of an instrument; c. when the pregnant mother is dead.

1. If danger of death is imminent and the infant has put forth the head, he is to be baptized on the head; nor afterward, if he has escaped alive, will he have to be baptized again. But if he has put forth another member which indicates vital motion, he is to be baptized on that member under condition, and then, if once born he lives, he will have to be rebaptized under condition (if thou hast not been baptized).¹

2. If no part of the infant has come forth into the light, in danger of death the infant, if it can be done, is to be baptized under condition in the mother's womb; and if afterward he has been born, he is again to be baptized under condition (60. c. n.). Whether the mother is bound to suffer Caesarean section so that the child can be drawn out from the womb and endowed with the grace of baptism has been said elsewhere.²

3. When the pregnant mother is dead, there exists a grave obligation of charity to perform Caesarean section, even against the will of relatives, for procuring the eternal salvation of the infant. But the fetus who is drawn out after the mother's womb has been opened is to be baptized absolutely if he certainly lives.³

a. The obligation of performing the incision is derived from the precept of charity, by which all are bound to consult the eternal salvation of the infant; and if the fetus is viable (in the sixth month of pregnancy), there is added another reason, namely that of preserving the temporal life of the infant. This obligation is indeed greater the greater the hope is of obtaining the effect. But there is no obligation of performing the section if with moral certainty it is clear that the fetus has already died, or if there is scarcely any hope of drawing him out alive. This hope is very slight before the fourth month of pregnancy is completed; but after the fourth month of pregnancy has been completed, this hope increases the greater the fetus has become.

b. Therefore as soon as the death of the mother is clear from the testimony of experts or, where the civil laws require this, from legal testimony, those whom it concerns, relatives and physicians or surgeons, are to be admonished concerning this obligation. And since experience shows that even tender fetuses sometimes live for several hours after the death of the mother, the obligation of performing the incision is still to be urged for a rather long time after the death of the mother. That the life of the infant may be more easily preserved, the uterus of the deceased mother is to be covered with cloths so that it may retain warmth; but to open the mouth of the mother, lest the infant perish from lack of respiration, is of no utility.

c. Those who are skilled in this art are bound before all others to perform the incision: physicians and surgeons. But if these are lacking, others are bound in whom there is such skill in surgical matters that they can perform the section without danger to the infant. Nevertheless a priest is never bound to this, both because of indecency and because of the danger of a greater evil which can arise for religion from the slanders of the malicious; but he must, as far as he can, take care that the incision be performed by others, unless civil authority forbids it to be done by someone other than a physician under penalties.⁴

¹ Roman Ritual, tit. 2, c. 1, n. 16. Cn. 746.

² Cf. De praeceptis^12, n. 344.

³ Roman Ritual, tit. 2, c. 1, n. 17.

⁴ Holy Office, 15 Feb. 1780 and 13 Dec. 1899; Olfers, Pastoralmedicin, p. 25 f.; Capellmann, Medicina past., p. 29.

72. On monsters to be baptized. Physiologists distinguish simple monsters, if one deformed infant is born, and double monsters, if a double one is born, one of whom adheres to the other in a different way. Therefore two things are in question here: a. whether the monster is a man; b. whether it is one or several human individuals.

1. A monster born of a woman is always to be baptized, and absolutely indeed if he certainly lives, whether the head is human and the members animal, or the head animal and the members human; for from man there naturally can be born only man, and he from the intercourse of a man with a woman. But what the ancient theologians add concerning monsters born from the intercourse of a man with a beast is opposed both to philosophy and to physiology.¹

2. A monster which distinctly bears before itself two heads or two breasts is a double person, and therefore double baptism, each absolute, must be conferred on the same. If it is doubted whether it is a double person, because it has either one head or only one breast, or two heads and two breasts not sufficiently distinct, likewise double baptism must be conferred, one absolute, the other under condition (if thou hast not been baptized).²

Neither acardiac fetuses, which consist only of belly and feet, nor moles, which are nothing but shapeless flesh in which a fetus prematurely dead has been absorbed or dissolved, are human individuals. In doubt whether it is a fetus or a mole, baptism is to be conferred under condition.

¹ Olfers, Pastoralmedicin, p. 30 ff.

² Cf. Roman Ritual, tit. 2, c. 1, n. 18 s. Cn. 748.

73. Assertions. 1. An adult who has known the obligation of baptism is bound to receive it as soon as he conveniently can; for each one is bound by divine law to enter the Church, and baptism is the door of the Church. But one is not to be baptized unless knowing and willing and well instructed.

What delay of baptism, not excused by a just cause, is to be held grave cannot be determined. There are some who think that delay of baptism even until danger of death is not of itself a grave sin, unless it is done out of contempt.¹ But it seems incredible that a man could neglect through the whole course of his life the principal obligation of human life, namely that of serving God and tending toward the last end. Moreover, it is the will of Christ that baptism not be deferred through one's whole life without a cause of necessity; for Christ wills the faithful in this life to be gathered into the visible Church, which they must enter through baptism. Therefore the holy Fathers of the Church gravely reprehend the custom of deferring baptism until a more mature, advanced age or until death, and most theologians affirm the grave obligation of receiving baptism without delay, unless moral impossibility excuses. Therefore as soon as a man morally can, he is bound to fulfill this obligation. But it must be conceded that the Church has never determined nor can determine the time for receiving baptism for unbelievers, since they are not subject to the Church.²

2. In danger of death, all those who are presumed to have the intention of baptism are to be baptized at least under condition, after instruction has been given, as far as possible, concerning the mysteries which must necessarily be believed by necessity of means.

a. Concerning the existence of the dispositions which are necessary for receiving baptism validly and fruitfully (intention, faith, knowledge, contrition), certainty is not required, but probability suffices, even only slight probability; for since the sacraments are for men, they can be administered to one who is placed in danger of life even with a slight probability concerning their value.

b. Whether a missionary can licitly baptize one whom he finds dying, an unbeliever already deprived of the senses. - Since it is not licit to frustrate a sacrament, and an unbeliever who has no desire of baptism is incapable of it, it is asked how the missionary must be certain concerning the existence of the intention which is required for validly receiving baptism (n. 41, 3): namely, whether a positive sign of intention is required for licitly baptizing an unbeliever, or whether intention can be presumed in the same way in which, in Catholics deprived of the senses, the intention of the sacrament (of absolution, of extreme unction) is presumed. For a sacrament to be licitly administered there is required a probable judgment concerning the intention of the sacrament in the subject. Now in an adult Catholic this judgment is founded on the very religion which he professes; for it is rightly presumed that a Catholic existing in danger of death wishes to be helped by the means instituted by Christ for dying well. Therefore the practice now flourishes in the Church of absolving and anointing with extreme unction all the dying deprived of the senses, unless it is morally clear that they positively reject the sacraments.³ But in unbelievers that probable judgment, even though only slight, cannot be formed otherwise than from the circumstances of place, person, condition, etc. Therefore it is not licit to baptize indiscriminately all pagans deprived of the senses in danger of death, but only those whom the missionary, having considered all the circumstances, prudently judges to have at least the implicit will of receiving baptism.⁴ Hence if the dying man himself is unknown to him, let the missionary, as far as can be done, ask others whether they know anything about his dispositions, whether perhaps he asked for baptism or heard Christian instruction, or at least by living well showed care for his salvation. As to the rest, nothing remains except that he commend them to the divine mercy. Then, if one baptized in this way should return to himself, he would have to be baptized again under condition, unless he testifies that he had a firm purpose of receiving baptism.

c. Dying unbelievers who are not deprived of the senses are indeed to be questioned about their intention; but licitly, even when asking for the sacrament, they cannot be baptized if they lack the necessary dispositions, namely due knowledge and contrition. Therefore they must be instructed concerning those things necessary by necessity of means, and also concerning the obligation of contrition.⁵

d. In order that insane persons who at some time had the use of reason can validly be baptized, it is required that before insanity they conceived the will of receiving baptism; in order that they may in reality be sanctified, it is further required that they elicited an act of faith and supernatural sorrow for sins. If, after the circumstances have been considered, it is not morally clear that this will was lacking, in practice they are always to be baptized under condition, whether in danger of death or even outside it, where no hope of recovering reason shines forth, because they are at least slightly supposed to have had at least an implicit desire of baptism. But if they have lucid intervals, they are to be baptized if they wish, while they are in possession of their mind.

3. Children of unbelievers who have the use of reason and ask for baptism can and of themselves ought to be baptized even against the will of the parents, provided they have been sufficiently instructed and show a firm will of living as Catholics; for he who has attained the use of reason is, in his moral actions, fully his own master, and cannot be hindered by anyone else in procuring eternal salvation.

Since youths who are baptized against the will of their parents ordinarily cannot be separated from their parents, and, being left under their power, are exposed to various and indeed great dangers of relapsing into their former errors, their constancy must be well tested before they are admitted to baptism. And because from the fact that children are baptized against the will of their parents serious inconveniences sometimes arise for the Catholic cause, great prudence is needed in admitting them to baptism. Where, on account of baptism conferred against the will of the parents, either the defection of the baptized person or another grave evil must rightly and deservedly be feared, ordinarily it will be better to defer baptism until a more mature age.

Note. The Code of Canon Law, cn. 753, gives two admonitions: a. both the priest who is about to baptize adults and the adults themselves, if they are healthy, ought to be fasting; b. baptized adults should immediately assist at the sacrifice of the Mass and receive holy communion, unless grave causes prevent.

Article Fourth. On Those to Be Baptized Under Condition

There are chiefly two cases in which there is question of repeating baptism under condition: a. if some are converted from heresy; b. if little children are baptized privately because of danger of death.

¹ Genicot, Theol. mor. inst., II, n. 149.

² Cf. Laymann, l. 5, tr. 2, c. 6, n. 8; Suarez, disp. 31, sect. 2, n. 3.

³ Lehmkuhl, Casus consc., II, n. 45; Genicot, Theol. mor. inst., II, n. 150.

⁴ Holy Office, 30 Mar. 1898.

⁵ Holy Office, 1 Apr. 1898.

74. On converted heretics. Although baptism conferred by heretics is of itself valid, nevertheless, with the unbelief of non-Catholic ministers increasing day by day at the present time, it is greatly to be feared that non-Catholic ministers baptize invalidly because of defect of an essential condition. Nevertheless the Church has always disapproved the custom of rebaptizing under condition indiscriminately those baptized by heretics, and has prescribed that in individual cases inquiry be made into the validity of the baptism, whatever may be the sect from which the non-Catholics have come, unless the inquiry is morally impossible, or from the circumstances it is clear either that the sect confers no baptism, or that no inquiry can supply certainty concerning the value of the baptism.¹ Now:

a. If, after inquiry has been made, the value of the baptism conferred is certainly clear, they are in no way to be rebaptized.

b. But if concerning the value of the baptism there remains a doubt not wholly empty, they are to be rebaptized under condition.

c. But if it is certainly clear that the sacrament was invalid, they are to be rebaptized absolutely.

d. Finally, if either no inquiry can be instituted or nothing can be learned concerning the value of the baptism, today it is rightly presumed to be invalid and therefore to be repeated under condition.²

In what circumstances an adult is to be baptized under condition. If the doubt concerns the dispositions of the subject, baptism is to be conferred absolutely; for in this case baptism validly conferred afterward revives when the baptized person obtains the due disposition for himself. But it could not revive, as being invalid, if it had been conferred under condition. Only if the doubt concerns a condition required for validity (intention) is baptism to be conferred under condition (if thou art capable), because in this case it cannot revive, since it is either valid or invalid.³

¹ Holy Office, 21 Feb. 1883.

² Cf. decree of the Holy Office, 30 Nov. 1878, which at the same time ordered corrected the case proposed by Gury (De baptismo VIII, 2).

³ S. C. de Prop. Fide, 6 June 1860.

75. On infants privately baptized. It is not licit to baptize again without discrimination all infants baptized at home by midwives or other laypersons, since this is opposed to Catholic dogmas. Therefore in individual cases, even with witnesses heard if any were present,¹ it must be diligently investigated whether the baptism conferred at home was valid. But if a doubt not wholly empty concerning its value remains, it is to be repeated under condition; but if it has been established that it was validly conferred, only the ceremonies must be supplied.² And indeed, where a midwife or another person who is of good reputation, worthy of faith, circumspect, and instructed in the rite of baptizing asserts that the infant was rightly baptized by her, there is no reason why the value of the baptism should be doubted. But to repeat baptism where no doubt concerning its value exists is certainly gravely illicit.³

In order that a judgment concerning the value of the baptism can be formed, it must be asked: a. who baptized and in what circumstances; for if the baptism was conferred by a person who is accustomed to be anxious, disturbed, and perplexed, or if baptism was conferred by a prudent person indeed, but in difficult circumstances, in which because of a sudden event there was confusion or because of danger to the mother and infant all things had to be done hastily and in a disturbed way, there is more easily room for doubting; b. what form he pronounced; c. what and how much water he poured, and where he poured it; d. whether he pronounced the form and washed at the same time; e. what intention he had.

¹ Therefore cn. 742, 1 prescribes that in private baptism two witnesses or at least one be used.

² Roman Ritual, tit. 2, c. 1, n. 53; S. C. C., 27 Mar. 1883.

³ From the prescription of the Roman Ritual (c. 1, n. 13), the pastor must take care that midwives know and observe well the correct rite of baptizing. Hence the pastor is bound diligently to instruct and examine them in those things which are necessary concerning the matter, form, intention, and manner of conferring baptism, especially also on abortive and not-yet-born fetuses. For this end the booklets can be of use: Unterricht uber die Nottaufe (Munich, self-published by the archiepiscopal chancery of the Ordinariate); Unterricht uber die Spendung der Nottaufe (Freiburg: Herder); Unterweisung der kath. Hebamme (Klagenfurt: Vereins-Buchdruckerei); likewise Berardi, Examen obstetricum circa baptismum (Faenza: Novelli, 1895).

76. Notes. 1. It is not licit before ordination to baptize under condition those who doubt concerning baptism conferred on themselves solely because they have been able to have no positive document or testimony of it, or because they were baptized by catechists or other less instructed Christians. For those who were born from Christian parents and educated by them in Christian fashion are altogether to be presumed to have been baptized. The same must be presumed also in the other case, as long as only negative doubts are brought forward, since it is clear that catechists are carefully chosen and diligently instructed for this office.¹

2. Nor is it licit for a Catholic priest, in a case of mixed marriage before the marriage, to baptize under condition the non-Catholic party because of doubt concerning the value of the baptism, if that party declares that he wills to remain in heresy.² For in order to contract marriage, certainty concerning the value of the baptism received is not required.

3. Exposed and found infants are not to be baptized even under condition if they have been found with a note which testifies concerning baptism conferred on them, and the note was written by a known and trustworthy man. But they are to be baptized under condition if they do not have a note testifying concerning baptism conferred, or if they have a note written by an unknown man or one not very worthy of faith. Cn. 749.

¹ S. C. de Prop. Fid., 30 Sept. 1848.

² Holy Office, 13 Apr. 1878.

77. From the most ancient times the Church has used sponsors in the conferral of baptism, who would offer the person to be baptized, bear testimony concerning his morals, in default of parents teach him the rudiments of faith, and stand as sureties, as it were, for him that the Christian life was to be led by him. The law concerning sponsors now in force in the Church was laid down by the Council of Trent and modified by the new Code of Canon Law.¹

The law in force. 1. In solemn baptism, under grave obligation, at least one sponsor must be used, whether man or woman, and more than two cannot licitly be used.

At least one: one suffices, who can indiscriminately be a man or a woman; but if two are used, they must be a man and a woman. Besides, since the office of sponsor can also be exercised through a proxy, and the office of proxy can be performed by a man for a woman and vice versa, in fact it can happen that two men or two women are present as sponsors.

Not more: the Church does not admit more than two sponsors, lest spiritual relationships be multiplied. Therefore if a pastor admitted more sponsors, he would indeed sin gravely, because he would injure a grave precept of the Church.

A man and a woman: St. Alphonsus judges (n. 155) that where two men or two women are admitted, a grave sin is committed if they are of a sex different from the one to be baptized, but a venial sin if they are of the same sex as the one to be baptized, because only in the former case, not in the latter, are spiritual relationships multiplied contrary to the mind of Trent.

2. Also in private baptism a sponsor is to be used, if he can easily be had. If he was not present, he is to be used when the ceremonies of baptism are supplied. But in this case he contracts no spiritual relationship.

3. If baptism is repeated under condition, the same sponsor, as far as can be done, should be used who perhaps was present at the first baptism. Outside this case, in conditional baptism a sponsor is not necessary.²

In baptism repeated under condition, spiritual relationship is contracted only if the same sponsor was used in both baptisms; therefore neither the sponsor who was present at the former baptism nor the one who was present at the latter contracts it.³

¹ Sess. 24, c. 2, De ref. matr. Cn. 762-769. Cf. Roman Ritual, tit. 2, c. 1, n. 22-26.

² Cn. 763, 1.

³ Cn. 763, 2.

78. Conditions required that someone validly be a sponsor:¹

1. That he have the use of reason and the will of performing the office of sponsor, because one who does not have the mind of undertaking it cannot undertake the obligation.

2. That he be baptized, because he cannot be a father who himself has not yet been born.

3. That he be designated by the one to be baptized himself, or by his parents or guardians, or, in their default, by the minister.

a. The right of designating sponsors indeed belongs to these, but it always belongs to the minister to admit those designated; and he who is not admitted by the minister is not a sponsor.²

b. If no one has been designated either by the parents or by the pastor, there is no sponsor, even if someone touched the infant with the intention of performing the office of sponsor.

4. That he belong to no heretical or schismatic sect; nor by condemnatory or declaratory sentence be excommunicated, or infamous by infamy of law, or excluded from legitimate acts; nor be a cleric deposed or degraded.

If a heretic or schismatic already designated by the parents cannot be removed without great offense, he could be admitted as a witness, without being admonished about touching the infant in the act of washing. Indeed, if without grave evil he could not be prevented from touching the infant, for avoiding so great an evil that too could be permitted, since the matter is not intrinsically evil; but no relationship would arise, since he is not a sponsor.

5. That he not be the father or mother or spouse of the one to be baptized, because this would be contrary to the end of this institution, since parents already have the office of educating.

If solemn baptism is to be conferred and no one is present who may hold the person to be baptized except the father (which can happen in mission regions), let him take the place of sponsor, materially holding his child and answering for him to the one baptizing; but he does not contract spiritual relationship or the impediment of asking the debt, since he does not become sponsor.

6. That through himself or at least through a proxy he physically hold or touch the one to be baptized; mere assistance is not sufficient.

7. That the baptism be valid; therefore he does not become sponsor who performs the office of sponsor where only the ceremonies are supplied and where baptism is invalid for any cause whatever.

¹ Cn. 765.

² Council of Trent, sess. 24, c. 2, De reform. matr.

79. Obligations of the sponsor. a. The office of the sponsor is to exercise spiritual care over his little child and to instruct him in Christian faith and morals. This obligation is grave, since it concerns a grave matter; the office of taking care that the spiritual son show himself such as he had promised he would be extends to his whole life.¹

b. From the office of sponsor in baptism, both solemn and private, there arises spiritual relationship between the sponsor and the baptized person. But if the office of sponsor is exercised through a proxy, the office of educating and the spiritual relationship are contracted not by the proxy but by the mandator.²

¹ Cn. 769.

² Cn. 768.

80. Conditions required that someone licitly be a sponsor:¹

1. That he have reached the fourteenth year of age, unless for a just cause something else seems right to the minister.

2. That he not be unworthy, such as those who, on account of a notorious delict, are excommunicated or excluded from legitimate acts or infamous by infamy of law, although no sentence has intervened; interdicted persons, or otherwise publicly criminal or infamous by infamy of fact.

3. That he know the rudiments of faith.

4. That he not be a novice or professed member in some religious institute, unless necessity urges and the express permission of the superior, at least the local superior, is had.

5. That he not be established in sacred orders, unless the permission of his proper Ordinary is added.

a. By the name of religious institute is understood any religious society approved by the Church, in which public vows are emitted, perpetual or temporary yet to be renewed when the time has elapsed.²

b. Nowhere in law is the one baptizing himself prohibited from being sponsor, although it is opposed to the custom prevailing in the Church. In this case the one baptizing would have to perform through a proxy those things which belong to the sponsor in solemn baptism.³

Whether it is licit for a Catholic to be sponsor of an infant of heretics when a heretical minister baptizes. - The Holy Office on 10 May 1770 decreed: "it is absolutely not licit either by oneself or through others to perform the office of sponsor in baptisms which are ministered by heretics to the children of heretics."

There are indeed authors who permit this where that action cannot be judged an approval of a non-Catholic rite. These authors thought, namely, that in circumstances of this kind the hope of the future education of the infant in the true faith was a sufficient reason on account of which that communication with heretics could be permitted. But, even apart from forbidden communication in sacred things, it is never licit to ask what another cannot perform without sin; but the sponsor asks for baptism, which the heretical minister cannot confer without sin.⁴

Note. In rejecting the unworthy from the office of sponsor, the pastor must be very prudent and cautious, lest he offend others or create troubles for himself. Hence: a. when baptism is requested, let him ask who the sponsors are; and if he observes that by the prescription of the Church they ought to be rejected, let him admonish them concerning this before the persons to be rejected come to the church. b. Let him carefully abstain from every injurious word and take care not to disclose the cause of rejection, but in a gentle manner say only that according to the prescriptions of the Church he cannot admit him as sponsor. c. If he cannot prevent a heretic from coming to church to act as sponsor, first let him ask that they choose a Catholic man as sponsor, but use the heretic as witness. But if they are unwilling to do this, let him take care, as far as possible, that the heretic not touch the infant in the act of baptism. But if this can in no way be prevented, it is better to admit it than to omit baptism or give occasion for the infant to be baptized by a non-Catholic minister.

¹ Cn. 766.

² Cn. 488, 1.

³ As to the sacrament of confirmation, S. C. R. expressly declared this on 14 Jan. 1873, n. 3305.

⁴ Cf. Lehmkuhl, Theol. mor., II, n. 71 (n. 99).

81. On the ceremonies themselves. 1. Outside danger of death, baptism must be conferred solemnly both on little children and on adults.

Nor indeed can the local Ordinary permit baptism to be conferred privately outside danger of death, except for heretics who are baptized under condition in adult age. Cn. 759, 2.

2. In danger of death baptism may be conferred privately, and indeed, if the minister is neither priest nor deacon, only those things are to be placed which are necessary for the validity of the sacrament; but if the minister is a priest or deacon and time is available, the ceremonies which follow baptism are also to be placed. Cn. 759, 1.

3. The ceremonies of baptism are some for little children, others for adults, as can be seen in the Ritual.

a. In the baptism of those who have the use of reason, the ceremonies prescribed for adults must be used, and of itself it is not licit to use the ceremonies prescribed for the baptism of little children. For as regards baptism, those who enjoy the use of reason are considered adults. Cn. 745, 2. Nevertheless the local Ordinary, for a grave and reasonable cause, can indulge that in the baptism of adults the ceremonies prescribed for the baptism of little children be used. Cn. 755, 2.

b. Infants doubtfully baptized in heresy are to be baptized under condition with the ceremonies prescribed in the Roman Ritual, but secretly.¹

4. The obligation of observing in solemn baptism the ceremonies prescribed in the Roman Ritual is grave; therefore to omit all of them, or some notable one of them, or to change them notably, is a grave sin.

a. Notable ceremonies, the omission of which constitutes a grave sin, are judged to be those which are prescribed for a grave end or produce a special effect, especially the anointing with the oil of catechumens and the anointing with chrism, insufflation, the placing of saliva and salt, the use of consecrated water, the profession of faith, or also several ceremonies of lesser moment taken together.

b. The use of old chrism or oil where new can be had is indeed gravely prohibited; but if freshly consecrated chrism is not yet present, the anointing with chrism or oil must not be omitted, nor for that reason should baptism be deferred to another time. Rather, the oil and chrism of the preceding year must be used, and therefore they are to be preserved until the new have arrived.

c. The questions which, from the Roman Ritual, are to be asked of the sponsors, are of themselves to be asked in the Latin language. Nevertheless it is not forbidden that the priest repeat in the vernacular for the sponsors the questions which he has uttered in Latin from the Roman Ritual, and receive their answers in the same language;² this manner of acting is also suggested by diverse provincial councils approved at Rome. Finally, recently it was conceded to some dioceses that the questions simply be made in the vernacular language.³

d. There indeed exists no precept of imposing on the one to be baptized the name of some saint; therefore it is not a sin to impose on him a profane or pagan name, unless it is the name of an impious man. But the pastor must as far as he can take care that the names of saints be imposed; if, however, he cannot prevent the name of some impious man from being imposed, baptism is not therefore to be denied or deferred, but the child is to be baptized, with the name of some saint added in a low voice.⁴

The right of choosing the baptismal name belongs to the parents, then to the sponsor and other persons who take the place of parents; this holds also concerning illegitimate offspring, to whom in the first place the mother can impose the baptismal name.

Change of the name imposed in baptism is indeed not forbidden by ecclesiastical law, but by civil law (in Austria) it is not permitted (except for religious), and in all public documents the name inscribed in the baptismal book must be used.

¹ Holy Office, 2 Apr. 1879.

² Holy Office, 23 Aug. 1880.

³ Holy Office, 7 July 1910, declared that in Austria it can be tolerated that the questions of the priest and the responses of the sponsors be made only in the vernacular language.

⁴ Roman Ritual, tit. 2, c. 1, n. 54; Holy Office, 13 Jan. 1883. Cn. 761.

82. On the place of baptism. 1. Solemn baptism is to be conferred in a church or in a public oratory, provided it has a baptismal font. Although the sacristy participates in some way in the sanctity of the church, nevertheless it is not licit to administer solemn baptism in the sacristy, "unless there is a reasonable cause to be approved by the bishop,"¹ who in an extraordinary case for a just and reasonable cause can also permit that it be administered in a private house.²

a. From this law in the law (cn. 776) there are excepted the children or grandchildren of those who actually hold supreme rule over peoples or have the right of succession to a throne; these can be solemnly baptized in the chapel of the paternal house or in another decent place. Where a legitimate custom flourishes, the custom of solemnly baptizing at home, according to St. Alphonsus (n. 118), can be extended also to other nobles.

b. In some places a custom has prevailed of baptizing at home infants either of nobles and the wealthy or of all women lawfully giving birth. It is not necessary that this custom be abrogated, insofar as it seems reasonable; for Ordinaries can permit that for little children, from a just and reasonable cause, the sacrament of baptism be administered at home.³

c. There are diocesan rituals approved by Rome which not only permit that in a time of great cold baptism be conferred in a heated sacristy, but also, where a sacristy of this kind is not had, in a decent place of the parochial buildings.

2. Private baptism in a case of necessity is to be administered at home or in any other place where necessity requires. A case of necessity is had:

a. If the infant is in danger of death.

b. If the infant cannot be brought to the church without danger of grave harm, e.g., of the parents' infamy.

c. If the parents live far from the church, so that the infant cannot be brought to it without great danger or inconvenience.

As some norm in this matter, it should be noted what the Second Council of Baltimore established (n. 337): "But if because of the inclemency of the weather, the difficulty of the journey, the poverty of the parents, or other grave causes, this cannot be done (that infants to be baptized be brought to the church), then we leave it to the prudence and conscience of the missionaries that he baptize them at home with all the ceremonies of the Church."

Note. In some places a custom has prevailed of baptizing illegitimate children, and a fortiori spurious children, without external solemnity, using only the ceremonies prescribed in the Ritual, while legitimate infants, on the contrary, are solemnly baptized with a gathering of the people and with the sound of organ and bells. The Holy See declared this custom just and reasonable,⁴ by which the scandal of illicit concubinage is lessened and the reverence due to the sacrament of matrimony is increased.

¹ S. C. R., 14 Mar. 1861, n. 3194.

² Cn. 776, 2.

³ S. C. de Sacr., 20 Dec. 1912.

⁴ S. C. C., 31 July 1867.

83. On supplying the ceremonies of baptism. If baptism was conferred privately, the ceremonies must be supplied by precept of the Church.¹ This obligation is grave and urges as soon as possible. In order that it may be known which ceremonies must be supplied in diverse cases, the following are to be noted:

1. If an infant was baptized privately without ceremonies, all the ceremonies, as they are had in the Ritual for little children to be baptized, must be supplied, and this in the church.

2. If the ceremonies must be supplied in an adult Catholic who after birth had indeed been validly but privately baptized, the rite to be used is that which is found in the Ritual for the baptism of little children; for the ceremonies must be supplied which should have been performed in the baptism itself.²

3. If the ceremonies of baptism must be supplied in an adult heretic validly baptized who returns to the Church, the rite to be used is that which is found in the Ritual for the baptism of little children; for the ceremonies follow baptism.

Nevertheless the custom has prevailed of not supplying the ceremonies of baptism in those who return from heresy, if it is clear that they were validly baptized.

4. If an infant was indeed solemnly baptized, but invalidly because of an essential defect, and must be baptized again, the ceremonies are omitted and only the essential rite must be repeated.

5. If by error the omission of some notable rite or the interchange of oil occurred, the error must be repaired, unless the circumstances suggest otherwise. There is scarcely any difficulty in repairing the error if the error is discovered before the sponsors depart; but if they have already departed, the difficulty of returning, scandal, or murmuring which could arise from it will excuse from the obligation of repairing the error.

On the notation of baptism.³ 1. Pastors are to enter the names of the baptized, etc., in the baptismal book without any delay.

2. Where it is a question of illegitimate children, the baptized person is to be inscribed as the child of an unknown father or of unknown parents. Nevertheless the name of the mother must be inserted if her maternity is publicly known, or if she herself freely asks this either in writing or before two witnesses. Likewise the name of the father is to be inserted if he himself freely requests this of the pastor either in writing or before two witnesses, or if he is known from a public and authentic document.

3. If baptism was administered neither by the proper pastor nor in his presence, the minister is to inform the proper pastor of the baptized person as soon as possible concerning the baptism conferred.

¹ Roman Ritual, tit. 2, c. 1, n. 15.

² S. C. R., 27 Aug. 1836, n. 2743.

³ Cn. 777-778.

THE first of the sacraments, the door by which men enter into the Church of God, by which they are made her children and the sons of God, is Baptism. The Catechism of the Council of Trent defines Baptism as the sacrament of regeneration by water in the word. This is but expressing in other words what our Lord said to Nicodemus, “‘ Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”¹ The new birth which takes place in Baptism is the new life of grace which is given to the soul by the sacrament, and by this vivifying grace the soul which was dead to God lives to him with a supernatural life.

Baptism, then, is a total washing of the soul from the stains of sin, both original and actual, if any have been committed, and a complete cancelling of all the debt of punishment which may be due to sin. This is brought about by the infusion of sanctifying grace into the soul, together with the habits of the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity. Moreover, by Baptism a character is imprinted on the soul by which it is known to God and his angels as that of a baptized Christian; and the person baptized becomes a member of the Church, a child of God, and heir to the kingdom of heaven.

¹ John iii 5.

By the positive will of Jesus Christ Baptism is necessary for salvation, as may be gathered from the words quoted above. This truth was defined by the Council of Trent,¹ “ If anyone saith that Baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation—let him be anathema.” Without Baptism, then, it is impossible to be saved, not merely because Christ commanded all to receive this sacrament, but because it infuses sanctifying grace into the soul, that nuptial garment without which no one can be admitted to the beatific vision. If, however, for one cause or another it is not possible to receive the Baptism of water, its place may be supplied by an act of perfect contrition or of the pure love of God, and by martyrdom. On this account Baptism is said by theologians to be threefold: the Baptism of water, the Baptism of desire, and the Baptism of blood. Perfect conversion to God by contrition for sin or by Se certainly infuses sanctifying grace into the soul and forgive: sin, as Holy Scripture frequently declares, and as the Council of Trent teaches² In this, therefore, its effect is similar to the primary effect of Baptism, and it is rightly called the Baptism of desire. Still, after the promulgation of the New Law the Baptism of desire only produces its effect because explicitly or implicitly it contains a desire and a purpose to receive the Baptism of water, should occasion offer. Although the Baptism of desire reconciles the sinner to God, yet it does not imprint any character on the soul, nor does it necessarily remit all the temporal punishment due to sin. The extent to which it does this will depend on the intensity of the act.

Martyrdom, also, or death patiently endured for the sake of Christ or for some Christian virtue, has the same effect as the Baptism of desire. “‘ Greater love than this,” said our blessed Lord, “no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends.’’³ Still martyrdom does not produce its effect simply as an act of love, but in a manner ex opere operato, by a special privilege, as being an imitation of the passion and death of Christ. Thus the Church honours as saints in heaven the Holy Innocents and other children who have been put to death for the sake of Christ. In the case of adults who have committed sin there must at least be attrition for sin in order that martyrdom may produce its effect as a kind of Baptism.

¹ Sess. vii, c. 5, de Bapt.

² Sess. xiv, c. 4.

³ John xv 13.

THE remote and valid matter of Baptism is natural water in a suitable state for washing one’s self. It is quite immaterial whether the water be spring water, rain water, sea water, or water from a river or pond; but frozen water is doubtful matter until it is melted, because it is not suitable for washing one’s self; while mud is invalid matter (Can. 737).

For solemn Baptism the Church prescribes the use of water specially consecrated for the purpose, and the same may be used for private Baptism, as also may holy water and common water. For the private Baptism of adults who have been converted from heresy and require to be baptized conditionally, the First Synod of Westminster prescribes the use of holy water.

The proximate matter of the sacrament is its use or application in the act of baptizing. This may validly be done either by infusion, or immersion, or sprinkling, provided that the water touches the head of the person to be baptized and flows so as to express the action of washing. In the Western Church, however, a triple pouring of water on the head of the person to be baptized, or a triple immersion, if such be the custom, is prescribed by the rubrics of the Ritual. Care should be taken that the water touch the skin, as the Baptism would be of doubtful validity if it merely touched the hair. Merely to lay the wet hand or finger on the skin would not be valid Baptism, and even if the wet finger were moved over the skin the validity would still be doubtful (Can. 758).

The form of Baptism is: “‘ I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Any change in this form which altered the sense would also invalidate the Baptism, as if one should say, “ I baptize thee in the name of Christ,” or “ of the Blessed Trinity.”” The form should be pronounced by the minister while he pours the water, and it is clear that if one pronounced the words while another poured the water, or if one baptized one’s self, the Baptism would be invalid.

THE ordinary minister of solemn Baptism is a priest, but as it is a parochial sacrament, its lawful administration belongs exclusively to the parish priest or to the priest who has the cure of souls in the district in which the parents of the child have their domicile or quasi-domicile. Such priest may, of course, delegate authority to any other priest to baptize in his name; if there is reasonable cause, as in case of illness or constant occupation in hearing confessions, he may commission a deacon to give solemn Baptism. The children of strangers may be baptized by the parish priest of the place, unless they can easily and without delay be baptized by their own parish priest (Can. 738, sec. 2).

In case of necessity, when there is danger of someone dying without Baptism, anyone who has the use of reason may baptize without the ceremonies. In such cases of necessity the Ritual prescribes that a priest should be preferred to a deacon, a deacon to a subdeacon, a cleric to a lay person, a man to a woman, unless the latter be preferred for the sake of decency or because she is better acquainted with the method of valid Baptism. Those who have the cure of souls should take care that the faithful, especially midwives, are instructed in the right method of administering Baptism. The Ritual also prescribes that a father or mother should not baptize their own child except when it is in danger of death and no one else can do so (Can. 742).

The ceremonies prescribed for solemn Baptism are of grave obligation, so that it would be a mortal sin to omit without necessity a notable part of them, as, for example, the anointings or the. use of consecrated water. The child is anointed with the oil of catechumens before the actual baptizing, and afterward with the chrism, The holy oils should be kept carefully separated, and they should be renewed every year when the oils are consecrated Thursday. The baptismal by the Bishop on Maundy font, too, should be blessed on Holy Saturday with the oils consecrated on the previous Thursday. If they have not arrived in time the font should be blessed without them, and they should be added afterward, unless, in the meantime, someone has to be baptized, and then the old oils may be used in blessing the font. threaten to be exhausted, fresh, unblessed If the oils olive oil may be added, always in smaller quantity. The same rule may be followed with regard to the consecrated water in the font. The Ritual admonishes the parish priest to take care that as far as possible names of saints should be given in Baptism, so that, by their example, the baptized person may be moved to live holily, and that he may hope to enjoy their patronage. In solemn Baptism the Latin language should be used, but certain portions may also be rendered in the vernacular, according to the Ritual approved for use in the country.

According to the Code of Canon Law, the proper place for solemn Baptism is the baptistery in a church or public oratory. Every parish church should have a baptismal font. If, on account of distance or for other reasons, a person to be baptized cannot be brought to the parish church, the parish priest may and ought to administer solemn Baptism in the nearest church or public oratory. Solemn Baptism should not be administered in private houses unless those to be baptized are the children or grandchildren of those who hold the chief authority in the country, or have the right to succeed to the throne, and they make the request, or if the local Ordinary for good reason in some extraordinary case thinks that it should be allowed. In these cases Baptism should be given with consecrated water, and in the chapel or in some suitable room of the house (Can. 773-776).

Adults should be baptized according to the longer form in the Ritual unless the local Ordinary for a grave reason allow the form for the Baptism of infants to be used (Can. 755, sec. 2).

Those who have attained the use of reason are their own masters in the things of God, and are considered adults with reference to Baptism (Can. 745, sec. 2, 11).

Adults who have been converted from heresy and require conditional Baptism are to be baptized privately with holy water and without the ceremonies, according to the First Synod of Westminster (Can. 759, sec. 2).

In questions concerning Baptism, infants are those who have not attained the use of reason, had the use of reason sec, 2). and those who are reckoned never have as infants (Can. 745, Baptism; if they were used in the first E ‘they may be used or omitted in the second at the option of minister. This does not apply to conditional Baptism ministered to adult converts,

SPONSORS, according to ecclesiastical law, are used in solemn Baptism to answer for the child baptized, to hold him during Baptism, or to receive him immediately after Baptism from the hands of the minister, and to act as his instructors in the Faith which he received and professed in Baptism.

With regard to those who have Catholic parents, the sponsors may ordinarily presume that the Catholic education of the child will be sufficiently provided for by them; but otherwise the sponsors will be bound, as far as possible, to provide for it.

Sponsors should be employed in private Baptism if at least one can easily be had; if this was not done, they should be employed afterwards when the ceremonies are supplied in the Church (Can. 762, sec. 2).

The Council of Trent ordained, “that in accordance with the appointments of the sacred canons, one person only, whether male or female, or at most one male and one female, shall receive in Baptism the individual baptized; between whom and the baptized, and the father and mother thereof, as also between the person baptizing and the baptized, and the father and mother of the baptized, and these only, shall spiritual relationship be contracted. The parish priest, before he proceeds to confer Baptism, shall carefully inquire of those whom it may concern what person or persons they have chosen to receive from the sacred font the individual baptized; and he shall allow him or them only to receive the baptized; he shall register their names in the book, and teach them what relationship they have contracted, that they may have no excuse on the score of ignorance. And if any others besides those designated should touch the baptized, they shall not in any way contract a spiritual relationship, any constitutions that tend to the contrary notwithstanding.¹

Spiritual relationship between the sponsors and the parents of the baptized person and between the minister of Baptism and the parents was abolished by Canon 768.

In order to be sponsor validly a person must be: (1) Baptized, have the use of reason, and have the intention of being sponsor. (2) He must not belong to any heretical or schismatical body, nor be excommunicated by a condemnatory or declaratory sentence, nor infamous with the infamy of law, nor excluded from acts of law, nor a deposed or degraded cleric.

(3) He must not be the father, mother, or spouse of the person baptized. (4) He must be designated by the person to be baptized, or by his parents or guardians, or failing these by the minister of Baptism.

(5) He must physically hold or touch the baptized person in the act of Baptism, by himself or by his proctor, or immediately raise or receive him from the sacred font or from the hands of the person baptizing (Can. 765).

¹ Sess. xxiv, c, 2, de Ref.

To be admitted as sponsor lawfully a person— (1) Must have reached the fourteenth year of his age, unless the minister judge otherwise for a good reason.

(2) He must not be excommunicated for a notorious crime, or excluded from acts of law, or infamous with the infamy of law, but without sentence having been passed, or under interae or otherwise publicly criminal, or infamous by infamy of fact.

(3) He must know the rudiments of the Faith.

(4) He must not be a novice or professed in any religious institute, unless there is necessity and the express leave be had of at least the local superior.

(5) He must not be in sacred orders unless he have the express leave of his own Ordinary (Can. 766).

Others are sometimes prohibited by provincial law, as the following in England: those who have not been confirmed or who have not made their Easter duties, and ecclesiastics.

One may be sponsor by proxy, and then the principal, not the proxy, contracts spiritual relationship with the person baptized.

Sponsors are not necessary when Baptism is reiterated conditionally, unless the same person can be had in the second Baptism as acted as sponsor in the first (Can. 763).

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

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

¹ Sess. vi, c. 6.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

(St. Thomas, part 3, qq. 66-69; St. Alphonsus, Theologia Moralis, book VI, nn. 95-160; Homo Apostolicus, tract 14, nn. 7-38.)

We shall speak first of Baptism considered in itself, then of its ministration, and finally of the reception of Baptism.

Baptism is a sacrament by which man is spiritually regenerated through the washing of the body with water, done by another, under the express invocation of the individual Persons of the Most Holy Trinity. With this summary notion premised, we shall treat first of the existence, then of the essence, then of the effects, and finally of the necessity of Baptism.

Baptism is a true sacrament of the New Law. This is of faith from the Council of Trent,¹ and it is clear from Sacred Scripture, which openly teaches that Baptism is a sensible sign instituted by Christ and efficacious of grace.

I said a sensible sign, that is, consisting of matter, which is washing with water, and of form, which is situated in the invocation of the Most Holy Trinity. It suffices to have alleged John 3:5: Unless one is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God; and Matthew 28:19: Going therefore, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

I said a sign efficacious of grace; since regeneration, concerning which Matthew speaks in the cited place, cannot be understood except as spiritual regeneration, which is effected through grace. For the rest, let the dogmatic theologians be consulted.

Note 1. It is disputed concerning the time at which Christ instituted Baptism. The more common and more probable opinion teaches that it was instituted by Christ before the Passion. Otherwise the Apostles would have received the Holy Eucharist and Order before Baptism had been received. There is added that the disciples of Christ baptized before the Passion of the Master.² Now the Baptism conferred by the disciples seems to have been different from the Baptism of John the Baptist. This is deduced from John 3:25 ff. It remains, therefore, that we say that the Baptism conferred by the disciples of Christ was our sacrament. For a third Baptism is invented without sufficient reason (St. Thomas, III, q. 66, a. 2; St. Alphonsus, VI, 96).

It is more disputed at what precise moment Christ instituted Baptism. According to some, in the discourse with Nicodemus;³ according to others, when He sent the disciples to baptize.⁴ According to St. Thomas (III, q. 66, a. 2 and q. 73, a. 5, ad 4), St. Alphonsus (VI, 96), and others, when He Himself was baptized by John.⁵

Note 2. The Baptism of John was not of the same efficacy as the Baptism of Christ. This is of faith from the Council of Trent.⁶ Further, according to St. Thomas, "the Baptism of John was not of itself a sacrament, but as it were a certain sacramental disposing for the Baptism of Christ, and therefore in some way it belongs to the law of Christ, but not to the law of Moses" (III, q. 38, a. 1, ad 1).

¹ Session 7, On Baptism, canon 1.

² John 4:1, 2.

³ John 3.

⁴ John 4:1, 2.

⁵ Matthew 3:11-17.

⁶ Session 7, On Baptism, canon 1.

I. The remote matter of Baptism required for validity is true and natural water. This is of faith from the Council of Trent,¹ and is declared by canon 737, § 1. By true and natural water is understood that which according to common estimation comes under the name of natural water; for attention must be paid to this more than to the assertions of chemists. Water remains valid matter even if a diverse element has been mixed in, provided the quantity mixed in is small and does not change the water substantially. Thus, for example, valid matter is water into which a thousandth part of corrosive bichloride of mercury has been mixed;² with which water many physicians in a case of necessity baptize infants, especially in the womb of the mother, namely lest the mother's uterus be affected by disease.³

Water composed by chemical art from the elements which constitute water, that is, from oxygen and hydrogen, is doubtful matter. In the case there is true water; likewise water natural according to intrinsic causes, but artificial according to the extrinsic cause. Further, it is doubted whether water of this kind is valid matter.

Corollary I. Matter certainly valid is: 1. water drawn from wells, spring water, sea water, rain water; 2. water melted from ice, snow, or hail; likewise water condensed from vapor; likewise water purified from foreign elements by distillation; 3. sulphurous, ferruginous, or mineral water, provided that according to common estimation it is still called water.

Corollary II. Matter certainly invalid is: 1. blood, milk, wine; 2. fluids of the body, such as sweat, urine, saliva; 3. ice, snow, and hail, so long as they have not yet melted; 4. the sap of plants is almost certainly invalid matter. Amniotic fluid, that is, the fluid by which the fetus enclosed in the afterbirth is surrounded, seems to be invalid matter. For it is constituted by secretions from the body of the mother and of the infant, and therefore seems to have to be equated with other secretions, such as sweat, etc. Since, however, the matter is not so certain, in a case of necessity, if Baptism cannot be conferred in a more certain way, it can be ministered with amniotic fluid.⁴

Corollary III. Doubtful matter, besides water composed by chemical art, concerning which above, is: 1. moisture flowing from a vine or other trees; 2. liquid from dissolved salt; 3. water drawn by chemical art from plants, flowers, roots, such as rose water; 4. finally, broth, beer, coffee, tea, ink, mud, lye, and artificial waters are more or less doubtfully valid, according as they are thicker or thinner, or contain a greater or lesser quantity of foreign elements (St. Alphonsus, VI, 103, 104).

¹ Session 7, On Baptism, canon 2.

² In French: chloride de mercure.

³ Holy Office, 21 August 1901, in Nederlandsche Katholieke Stemmen, 1901, p. 289.

⁴ Cf. Aertnys-Damen, Theologia moralis, vol. II, n. 47.

II. The remote matter required for liceity is water certainly valid, pure, and, if there is question of solemn Baptism, that is, Baptism which is administered with all the rites and ceremonies (can. 732, § 2), baptismal water, that is, water blessed for baptizing (can. 757, § 1). It is said:

1. Certainly valid; nevertheless, in extreme necessity only matter certainly invalid is excluded. If the matter is doubtful, Baptism should be conferred under condition: if the matter is valid; and afterwards it should be repeated under condition (St. Alphonsus, VI, 103).

2. Pure, that is, neither mixed¹ nor filthy. To use very impure water without necessity is a grave sin (St. Alphonsus, VI, 102).

3. Baptismal for solemn Baptism (can. 757, § 1); and this obligation is grave (St. Alphonsus, VI, 102). The consecration, however, must be done twice in the year, namely on Holy Saturday and on the Vigil of Pentecost, the old water having been poured into the sacrarium;² the precept of consecrating the water at the aforesaid times is grave. If lack is feared, common water can be mixed with it, even repeatedly, but in a smaller quantity (can. 757, § 2); if, however, it has become corrupted, or has flowed out, or has failed in any way whatsoever, the pastor is to pour fresh water into the font, well cleaned and neat, and bless it by the proper rite prescribed in his liturgical books (can. 757, § 3). Moreover, if the baptismal water is too cold, it can licitly be warmed or mixed with warmed common water.

With regard to the water to be used in private Baptism, it is better, if it can be done, to use baptismal water, but there is no obligation (cf. can. 757, § 3). Hence a priest called to confer private Baptism will laudably carry with him a sufficient quantity of baptismal water. "If baptismal water is not had and danger threatens, let the priest use simple water,"³ whether holy water or common water, as it is permissible to interpret this word.⁴

¹ The Holy Office, on 21 August 1901, responded that the mixture of corrosive bichloride of mercury, concerning which in the text under I, is licit only where a true danger of disease is present.

² Roman Ritual, title 2, chapter 2, n. 5; Sacred Congregation of Rites, nn. 2878, 3331.

³ Roman Ritual, title 2, chapter 2, n. 29.

⁴ The Holy Office, 20 June 1883, prefers holy water.

I. The proximate matter required for validity is the washing of the one to be baptized, done by the baptizer himself. This is clear from Sacred Scripture, which declares that man through Baptism is born again of water,¹ and is washed.² Canon 737, § 1, declares the same.

It is said:

1. Washing; and this indeed can be done in three ways, namely by immersion, pouring, and sprinkling. As regards validity, however, it makes no difference in what way it is done (can. 758). Nevertheless, true washing wholly requires:

a) That the water physically or immediately touch the one to be baptized. Hence: 1. Baptism is doubtful if the water has touched only the hair, scab, or birth matter still adhering in notable quantity. To birth matter there also seems to be numbered the vernix caseosa, which is accustomed to adhere to the fetus before cleansing. Hence surgeons and midwives, having removed scab and filth if need be, should either part the hair with the left hand while baptizing, or rather effect that the water flow over the temples of the head. Likewise, the sacred minister can, while pouring the water, divide the hair, or rather proceed in such a way that the water flows somewhat over the forehead (St. Alphonsus, VI, 107, q. 3).

2. With regard to Baptism conferred on the afterbirth, some teach absolutely that it is invalid, in whatever afterbirth the conferral may be done; namely, they judge that no afterbirth is a part of the fetus. Others hold Baptism conferred on the external afterbirth, or decidua, as certainly invalid, but Baptism on the inner afterbirths as doubtfully invalid. The reason is that they judge the decidua certainly, but the other afterbirths only probably, not to be parts of the fetus. According to others, Baptism conferred on whatever afterbirth is doubtfully valid. Many allege as the reason that the afterbirths are united with, or constitute as it were one continuum with, the umbilical cord, which probably belongs to the fetus; and thus Baptism conferred on the afterbirths would not be certainly invalid. There is added, they say, with regard to the inner afterbirths, that it is not yet wholly established that they do not belong to the fetus.³ In what way, all things considered, the fetus must be baptized will be explained in n. 93.

3. Baptism on the umbilical cord is more probably valid than on the afterbirths, because the cord is united immediately with the infant, while the afterbirths are united with the infant by means of the cord.⁴

b) That the water touch the one to be baptized with successive motion, unless several parts of water touch several parts of the body at the same instant, as happens, for example, in Baptism by sprinkling. For the rest, successive motion can occur in two ways, namely both by moving the body to the water, as in immersion, and by moving the water to the body, as in pouring and in sprinkling.

Moreover, a small quantity of water suffices, provided nevertheless that it flows over a sufficient part of the body; hence only one or another little drop, even if it flows, will leave Baptism practically doubtful (St. Alphonsus, VI, 107, q. 6). It also suffices that the baptizer, by the motion of a finger or of a moistened cloth, wash a part of the body (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.). Note, however, that according to the Holy Office, Baptism conferred "by way of anointing on the forehead, with the thumb moistened in baptismal water," had to be repeated.⁵

2. Of the one to be baptized; namely, in such a way that the man can morally be said to have been washed. Further, Baptism is certainly valid if the washing is done on the whole body or on the head, whether on the forehead, cheek, or crown; most probably if on another more principal part, as on the shoulder-blades, shoulders, or chest; it is more doubtful if on a less principal part, as on the hand, finger, or foot. The reason why Baptism conferred otherwise than on the whole body or on the head remains doubtful is "because ... in none of the exterior parts does the integrity of life consist as in the head" (St. Thomas, III, q. 68, a. 11, ad 4; St. Alphonsus, VI, 107, qq. 3 and 4). Hence canon 746, §§ 2 and 3: If the infant has put forth the head and danger of death threatens, let him be baptized on the head; nor afterwards, if he comes forth alive, is he to be baptized again under condition. If he has put forth another member, let him be baptized on it under condition if danger threatens; but then, if he is born alive, he is again to be baptized under condition.

3. Done by the baptizer himself. Therefore it does not suffice that the washing be done by the one to be baptized, or by a third party, or by a natural cause alone. Therefore:

a) Baptism would certainly be invalid: 1. if someone, seeing another washing himself or falling into a river, were to pronounce the form; 2. if someone were to utter the form while a third party poured the water (n. 20).

b) It would be doubtfully invalid if the baptizer himself were to place the one to be baptized under water poured by a third party, provided that the third party is not employed as applying the matter.

c) Baptism would be almost certainly valid if the baptizer himself moved the one to be baptized to water falling from a roof or from the sky, or springing from a fountain (St. Alphonsus, VI, 106).

Corollary I. If Baptism is conferred by immersion, it does not suffice that someone be held motionless in motionless water, because the baptizer cannot be said to wash the one to be baptized. Besides, according to some authors it is also required that the one to be baptized be drawn out of the water, according to that saying of Paul: Do you not know that all we who have been baptized in Christ Jesus have been baptized in His death? For we have been buried together with Him through Baptism into death, so that, as Christ rose from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life; for if we have been planted together in the likeness of His death, we shall also be in that of His resurrection.⁶

Corollary II. They also ask about the throwing of the one to be baptized, for example an infant, into a river. Now Baptism of this kind is doubtfully valid, for example because there is not had, as we suppose, emergence. Moreover, a manner of acting of this kind seems absolutely illicit, because the said throwing of itself tends only to killing. "Nevertheless it is licit to baptize a child soon to die with even icy water, if other water cannot be had, even if it were feared that death would be hastened by this ... because then death would not occur of itself, but accidentally; since such an action of itself does not tend to killing, but to washing" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 100). The same, with the same circumstances supposed, holds concerning poisoned or boiling water from which the infant would be killed.

¹ John 3:5.

² Eph. 5:26; Tit. 3:5; Acts 22:16; Heb. 10:22.

³ The fetus is enveloped in three membranes or afterbirths, which are: 1. the exterior afterbirth, which is called the decidua; 2. the inner afterbirths, namely the chorion and amnion. Cf. Cavellmann-Bergmann, Pastoral-Medizin, p. 242; Nouvelle Revue Theologique 1912, p. 581.

⁴ Nederlandsche Katholieke Stemmen, 1927, p. 146.

⁵ 14 December 1898 (Collectanea, n. 2028); cf. Holy Office, 8 November 1770; 9 July 1779 (Collectanea, nn. 486, 530).

⁶ Rom. 6:3-5.

II. The proximate matter required for liceity in solemn Baptism is gathered from canon 758 and the Roman Ritual. The cited canon declares: "Although Baptism can be conferred validly either by pouring, by immersion, or by sprinkling, nevertheless the first or second mode, or one mixed from both, which is more in use, is to be retained, according to the approved ritual books of the diverse Churches." Therefore the third mode, by sprinkling, is no longer to be used. The Roman Ritual defines the mode of baptizing more by these words: "The priest takes baptismal water in a small vessel or pitcher and pours it three times over the head of the infant in the form of a cross ... But where there is a custom of baptizing by immersion, the priest takes the infant and, taking care that he not be harmed, cautiously immerses him and baptizes by a triple immersion."¹ The triple pouring or immersion in solemn Baptism obliges under grave obligation (St. Thomas, III, q. 66, a. 8; St. Alphonsus, VI, 107, q. 5); in private Baptism it is recommended insofar as it can be done.

¹ Title II, chapter 2, nn. 19, 20. In almost all Churches which use the Latin rite, Baptism is conferred by pouring.

The legitimate form of Baptism is:

For the Latin Church: I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. This is clear from the Fourth Lateran, Florentine, and Tridentine Councils,¹ and likewise from the Roman Ritual.² That Amen is not to be added at the end is clear both from the cited documents and from the response of the Sacred Congregation of Rites on 9 June 1853.

For the Greek Church: The servant of Christ, N., is baptized (here the name of the one to be baptized is placed) in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. This is established from the Council of Florence and from the decree of Eugene IV for the Armenians.

¹ Session 7, canon 4, On Baptism.

² Title II, chapter 2, n. 8.

I. For validity, so that it be certain, it is required that there be expressed in the form: 1. the person baptizing (I); 2. the person to be baptized (you); 3. the act of baptizing (baptize); 4. the unity of the divine nature (in the name); 5. the express distinction of the three Persons, and indeed by proper names: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That the act of baptizing and the distinct invocation of the three Persons must be expressed, all concede. Concerning the rest there is dispute. Therefore let there be expressed:

1. The person baptizing. Whether the expression of this in the form of the sacrament is required for validity can be disputed. For the rest, it certainly suffices that it be expressed implicitly, as is done in the form of the Greeks, where they say that is baptized has the same force as is baptized by me (cf. St. Thomas, III, q. 66, a. 5; St. Alphonsus, VI, 108).

Corollary. The word I is not essential in the Latin and Greek languages, because the first person, as it is said, is expressed through the word baptize; the same cannot be said of several more recent languages.¹

2. The person to be baptized indeed seems to have to be expressed, "because, just as the washing, so also the form must be concerned with a certain person" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 108). Yet it seems to suffice that it be expressed implicitly; this can be done even if the word you is omitted. Hence the Holy Office on 8 September 1633 declared valid the form of the Armenians: Now my hand baptizes in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.² But the declaration of the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide, dated 11 September 1841, that Baptism is rendered invalid through omission of the word you, was omitted in the new edition.

3. The act of baptizing, and indeed the present act or act now being placed, must be expressed, as is clear: 1. from the Council of Florence;³ 2. from proposition 27 condemned by Alexander VII: "Baptism conferred under this form was at some time valid: In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, these words being omitted: I baptize you";⁴ 3. from the Decretal of Alexander III;⁵ 4. from this reason of St. Thomas: "Because the washing of a man in water can be for many things, it is necessary that it be determined in the words of the form for what it is done; and this indeed is not done by the fact that it is said: In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, because we ought to do all things in such a name, as is had in Colossians 3. And therefore, if the act of Baptism is not expressed either according to our mode or according to the mode of the Greeks, the sacrament is not perfected" (III, q. 66, a. 5, ad 2; St. Alphonsus, VI, 108). But the present act of baptizing, or the act now being placed, must be expressed; otherwise, considering the form, nothing would be effected now.

Corollary I. The word baptize, or another equivalent, such as wash or lave, is essential; but not anoint, because it does not involve the signification of washing. But in order that a certainly valid word be used, it is better in the vernacular language to use a word derived from the Latin baptizare, such as baptiser, to baptize, unless there is had a word which by usage has been consecrated for signifying sacramental washing, such as doopen, taufen.

Corollary II. There is doubt concerning the form: I christianize you, or concerning the English formula: I christen thee, because it expresses rather the effect of the sacramental action than the action itself. Yet if that or a similar formula somewhere by common acceptance signifies the action of baptizing, it is certainly valid. Hence it is valid among the Yugoslavs, as is clear from the Slavic Ritual, which was approved by the Holy See in 1894 and contains for the Greek rite the form: krescaetsja (= is christianized), for the Latin rite: Ia te krstim (= I christianize you).

¹ The Sacred Congregation of the Council on 11 February 1797 declared valid Baptism conferred thus, provided that a bad or heretical mind is set aside: Enfante, te baptize en nom de Pere, de Fils et de Saint-Esprit.

² Collectanea, n. 74.

³ Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 696.

⁴ Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1317.

⁵ Chapter 1, X 3, 42.

4. The unity of the divine nature likewise seems to have to be expressed, considering the words of Christ: Baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Corollary I. In the name is essential, at least insofar as it signifies unity; hence it would be invalid: 1. with the words in the name omitted, to say in the Father, etc.; 2. in place of in the name, to use the words in the names (St. Alphonsus, VI, 111).

Corollary II. The following forms are valid: 1. I baptize you in the name of the Father, in the name of the Son, in the name of the Holy Spirit;¹ 2. I baptize you in the name of the Father, I baptize you in the name of the Son, I baptize you in the name of the Holy Spirit;² 3. I baptize you in the name of the Father and in the name of the Son and in the name of the Holy Spirit;³ 4. I baptize you with the name of the Father, etc.⁴ Further, the four assigned forms, according to the mind of the Sacred Congregations, are valid if, a depraved or heretical mind being set aside, they are used. 5. I baptize you into the name of the Father, etc.; for this form plainly agrees with the form handed down in Sacred Scripture.⁵

Corollary III. Since it is somewhat doubtful whether the words in the name signify the name having been invoked or by the authority, the following forms are doubtful: 1. I baptize you by the authority of the Father, etc.; 2. I baptize you name of the Father, in being omitted (St. Alphonsus, VI, 112, dub. 2). In the case of Faesulae,⁶ Baptism conferred in Italian in this way, Io ti battezzo 'nnome del Padre, etc., is indeed judged valid; but the consultor argued from the usage in the Italian language, or in the Etruscan idiom, of omitting the letter i before m and n. Hence the declaration cannot be referred to another language.

¹ Cf. Holy Office, 11 January 1882, and Sacred Congregation of the Council, 4 May 1641.

² Holy Office, 11 January 1882.

³ Sacred Congregation of the Council, 4 May 1641.

⁴ Sacred Congregation of the Council, 16 August 1828; 24 May 1823; Holy Office, 23 May 1720. See Thesaurus resolutionum, vol. 83, fol. 134 and following.

⁵ Cf. the Greek text, Matthew 28:19; Acts 19:5; 1 Cor. 1:13.

⁶ 12 September 1801.

The effects of Baptism are:

I. Sanctifying grace, of itself first grace, accidentally second grace (n. 6), with the infusion of all the virtues and gifts of the Holy Spirit attached.

II. Sacramental grace; this consists in the fact that the sanctifying grace which Baptism confers is both ordered to this, that man be spiritually regenerated and live Christianly, and carries with it a right to actual graces in order to living Christianly. This spiritual regeneration involves the remission of all guilt, both original and personal; the remission of all punishment, both eternal and temporal, with the things to be posited being posited, that is, sorrow for sins.

III. Character. 1. The existence of character is clear from the things said in n. 8.

2. Effects of character. Baptismal character effects that man:

a) Is deputed to the worship of God according to the rite instituted by Christ and exercised in the Church, especially with regard to the sacraments, for the reception of which, therefore, he is rendered capable by character (St. Thomas, Supplement, q. 35, a. 3; III, q. 63, a. 6; St. Alphonsus, VI, 79; cf. can. 737, § 1).

b) Becomes a member of the Church, and is obliged to lead a Catholic life, and is subjected to the authority and laws of the Church, that is, of the spiritual society instituted by Christ (cf. can. 87).

Corollary. In order that the baptized be bound to live Catholicly and obey the Church, it is not required that, after attaining the use of reason, they be asked whether they wish to hold the baptismal promises as ratified and in fact hold them as ratified.¹ Nor should you say: It is repugnant that someone be subjected to authority and laws without the consent of his will. That this is not repugnant is clear even from the fact that without the consent of their will infants are subjected to the authority and precepts of parents, and citizens to the authority and laws of their country.

¹ Council of Trent, Session 7, On Baptism, canon 14.

After the sufficient promulgation of the Gospel, the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation by necessity of means, yet not absolutely but hypothetically. It is said:

I. After the sufficient promulgation of the Gospel. Thus the Council of Trent.¹ Now sufficient promulgation for some, but not for all, was effected through the sermon of St. Peter on the day of Pentecost. For the rest, authors more commonly teach that the promulgation of the Gospel for different nations took place at different times, and that for the whole world it has already long since occurred, although its diffusion has not yet been extended everywhere.

II. The sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation by necessity of means; this proposition is of faith from the Council of Trent: "If anyone says that Baptism is free, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema."² Cf. canon 737, § 1.

III. Yet not absolutely, but hypothetically; by these words it is signified that there are means which can supply the place of Baptism, namely Baptism of desire and perhaps Baptism of blood, concerning which we shall speak in the scholia.

¹ Session 6, chapter 4.

² Session 7, On Baptism, canon 5.

I. Notion. Baptism of desire is so called because it is the effect of the Holy Spirit, who is also called Flamen (from breathing or inspiring). Now Baptism of desire is an act of perfect charity or perfect contrition.

I. Notion. Baptism of blood is martyrdom endured by one not baptized.

The necessity of precept already follows from the necessity of means. Moreover:

I. Adults not yet baptized, or doubtfully baptized, are bound to receive Baptism as soon as they can receive it worthily and, considering the circumstances and the dignity of the sacrament, suitably.

"For adults," says St. Thomas, "the sacrament of Baptism is not to be conferred immediately when they are converted, but it must be deferred until some certain time, first indeed because of the caution of the Church, lest she be deceived in conferring the sacrament on those who approach falsely, according to that passage of 1 John 4: Believe not every spirit, but prove the spirits whether they are of God; and this proving is taken concerning those approaching Baptism when for some space of time their faith and morals are examined. Secondly, this is necessary for the benefit of those who are baptized, because they need some space of time for this, that they may be fully instructed concerning the faith and exercised in those things which pertain to the Christian life. Thirdly, this is necessary for a certain reverence of the sacrament, while in the principal solemnities, namely of Easter and Pentecost, men are admitted to Baptism, and thus they receive the sacrament more devoutly" (III, q. 68, a. 3).

II. An adult who without reason defers Baptism for a long time sins gravely, because he is bound to be enrolled in the Church and to live as a Christian.

For the rest, compare what is to be said concerning the time of conferring Baptism (n. 87).

I. Every priest is the ordinary minister of solemn Baptism in this sense, that by the force of his ordination he is deputed principally, not secondarily as a deacon is, for baptizing, and can always be delegated by the proper pastor of the person to be baptized to baptize, and that solemnly (cf. canon 738, § 1).

I. The rites and ceremonies to be used. 1. Per se Baptism is to be conferred solemnly (canon 755, § 1), that is, with all the rites and ceremonies which are prescribed in the ritual books being observed (canon 737, § 2). Now:

a) The prescribed rites and ceremonies differ according as Baptism is to be conferred on adults or on little children. Nevertheless the local Ordinary can, for a grave and reasonable cause, allow the ceremonies prescribed for the Baptism of infants to be used in the Baptism of adults (canon 755, § 2); wherefore note that the Baptism of adults is indeed more beautiful, but longer, so that it can more easily produce weariness both for the neophytes and for those standing by.

b) The offspring must be baptized in the rite of the parents. If one parent belongs to the Latin rite and the other to an Eastern rite, the offspring is to be baptized in the rite of the father, unless another provision is made by special law. If only one is Catholic, the offspring must be baptized in the rite of this one (canon 756). From these things it follows that, so far as it can be done, care must be taken that the offspring be baptized by a minister belonging to the rite in which the offspring must be baptized;¹ since each person is bound to follow his own rite in confecting and ministering the sacraments (canon 733, § 2; n. 27).

c) The interrogations are to be made in the Latin language; but from the response of the Holy Office² it is permitted that the minister, after he has said the interrogation and responses in the Latin language for himself, repeat the interrogation in the vernacular language, so that he may receive the response of the sponsors.³

2. In danger of death, Baptism may be conferred privately; and, if it is conferred by a minister who is neither a priest nor a deacon, only those things are to be done which are necessary for the validity of Baptism; if by a priest or deacon, the ceremonies which follow Baptism are also to be observed, if there is time (canon 759, § 1).

It is disputed whether, if the danger of death is fairly remote, the ceremonies preceding Baptism also must be performed. Now this is denied quite probably, because the canon speaks only of the subsequent ceremonies, and perhaps does so in order that every danger that someone might die before Baptism may be radically forestalled.

3. Outside danger of death, the local Ordinary cannot permit private Baptism, unless the case concerns heretics who in adult age are baptized conditionally (canon 759, §§ 1 and 2). In such a case even the ceremonies which follow Baptism can be omitted.

¹ Here note canon 98, § 1: "Among the various Catholic rites one belongs to that rite with whose ceremonies he was baptized, unless perhaps Baptism was conferred by a minister of another rite by fraud, or because of grave necessity, when a priest of the proper rite could not be present, or by apostolic dispensation, when the faculty was given that someone be baptized in a certain rite, yet without remaining ascribed to it." Moreover, one who, at the prayers of the parents, contrary to the prescription of canon 756, was baptized by a minister of another rite, belongs to the rite in which he ought to have been baptized according to the prescription of canon 756. Thus the Pontifical Commission, 16 October 1919 (A.A.S. 1919, p. 476).

² 25 August 1880 (Collectanea, n. 1538).

³ In some places it has been conceded that the interrogations be made in the vernacular language alone.

I. Notion. Sponsors, or receivers, are those who lift the baptized person from the sacred font or receive him from the minister of Baptism. St. Thomas sets forth the reason for this institution in these words: "Spiritual regeneration, which is effected through Baptism, is in a certain way likened to carnal generation; hence it is said in 1 Peter 2: 'As newborn infants, desire the rational milk without guile.' Now in carnal generation the recently born little child needs a nurse and teacher; hence also in the spiritual generation of Baptism someone is required who performs the office of nurse and teacher, by informing and instructing him, as one newly received into the faith, concerning those things which pertain to the faith and Christian life" (III, q. 67, a. 7).

I. Time. 1. Private Baptism, when necessity urges, is to be administered at any time and place (canon 771).

2. Even solemn Baptism can be administered on any day; nevertheless it is fitting that the Baptism of adults, according to the most ancient rite, be conferred, if it can conveniently be done, on the vigils of Easter and Pentecost, especially in metropolitan or cathedral churches (canon 772).

II. Place. 1. Private Baptism, when necessity urges, is to be administered at any time and place (canon 771). The same holds for private Baptism which is conferred outside urgent necessity, that is, for Baptism which, by permission of the Ordinary, is administered privately and conditionally to an adult heretic (cf. canon 759, § 2); and for every conditional Baptism which is conferred without ceremonies (cf. canon 760); if the ceremonies are supplied, this is to be done in a church or public oratory (cf. canon 759, § 3).

2. With respect to solemn Baptism, the following hold:

a) The proper place for administering solemn Baptism is the baptistery in a church or public oratory (canon 773). Hence every parochial church, any contrary statute or privilege or custom being revoked and reprobated, is to have a baptismal font, saving the legitimate cumulative right already acquired by other churches (canon 774, § 1).¹ Besides, for the convenience of the faithful the local Ordinary can permit or order that a baptismal font be placed also in another church or public oratory within the boundaries of the parish (canon 774, § 2).

b) If the person to be baptized, because of the distance of places or other circumstances, cannot approach or be transferred to the parish church, or to another church which enjoys the right of a font, without grave inconvenience or danger, solemn Baptism can and must be conferred by the pastor in the nearest church or public oratory within the boundaries of the parish, even though these lack a baptismal font (canon 775).

c) But in private houses solemn Baptism must not be administered, except in these circumstances: 1. if those to be baptized are the children or grandchildren of those who actually hold supreme rule over peoples or have the right of succession to the throne, whenever they have duly requested this; 2. if the local Ordinary, according to his prudent judgment and conscience, has judged that it should be conceded in some extraordinary case for a just and reasonable cause (canon 776, § 1).² In the cases mentioned, Baptism is to be conferred in the chapel of the house or at least in another decent place, and with baptismal water blessed in the usual way (canon 776, § 2).

In places of the missions, where Catholics live far from a church and infants cannot be brought to the church without great dangers and inconveniences, in those places, I say, the permission to baptize solemnly at home seems to persist.³

Note. Let pastors see to it that a Christian name be imposed on the one who is baptized; but if they cannot obtain this, let them add to the name imposed by the parents the name of some Saint, and write both names in the book of the baptized (canon 761). This addition can be made in a low voice.⁴ Note, however, that there are many names of saints which occur rarely, or have been taken from other languages and altered.

¹ The Pontifical Commission, 12 November 1922, reply to IV, declared that canon 774, § 1 is to be understood so that a church which has the right of a font cumulatively with other parochial churches of the whole city obtains it also before parochial churches newly erected in the city with a baptismal font. But the cumulative right of a font cannot in future be obtained by custom, which must be called corruption. A church which before the promulgation of the Code had an exclusive right of font before other parochial churches, after the promulgation of the Code and the erection of a font in the same churches according to the prescription of the cited canon, obtains only a cumulative right, saving the prescription of canon 778 (A.A.S. 1922, p. 662). Canon 778 prescribes that the pastor of the baptized person be informed.

² The Sacred Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments, 22 July 1925 (A.A.S. 1925, p. 452), to the question "whether the practice is conformable to law according to which infants who are not in danger of death, but cannot be transferred to the church without danger, are solemnly baptized at home by the pastor or by another priest with the pastor's permission," responded that it is conformable to law that, if the infant is not in danger of death but cannot without danger be transferred to the church according to canon 775, the Ordinary, by force of canon 776, § 1, n. 2, can permit, according to his prudent judgment and conscience, for a just and reasonable cause, in some extraordinary case, that Baptism be solemnly administered at home; but judging the gravity of the extraordinary case is left to the prudence and conscience of the Ordinary himself in individual cases.

³ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 4 February 1871 (n. 3234, reply to III).

⁴ Holy Office, June 1883.

I. Notation. 1. Pastors must carefully and without any delay enter in the baptismal book the names of the baptized, with mention made of the minister, the parents and sponsors, and the place and day of the Baptism conferred (canon 777, § 1).

But where illegitimate children are concerned, the mother's name is to be inserted if her maternity is publicly established, or if she herself spontaneously asks this in writing or before two witnesses; likewise the name of the father, provided he himself spontaneously asks this of the pastor either in writing or before two witnesses, or is known from a public authentic document; in other cases the newborn is to be inscribed as the child of an unknown father or of unknown parents (canon 777, § 2). Moreover the Pontifical Commission responded¹ that the names of parents are to be inserted in such a way that every occasion of infamy is avoided; but in particular cases recourse must be had to the Sacred Congregation of the Council.

2. If Baptism was administered neither by the proper pastor nor in his presence, the minister should as soon as possible inform the pastor of the baptized person by reason of domicile concerning the Baptism conferred (canon 778). "If the baptized person lacks a domicile, the pastor of the quasi-domicile, or, if he was without fixed domicile, the pastor of the place of Baptism, seems to be the one to be informed."²

3. The use of the baptismal book is prescribed under grave obligation, regard being had, namely, to the grave end of the law, that is, the proof of Baptism received, which, if the baptismal register is lacking, would sometimes be impossible.

¹ 14 July 1922, reply to VIII (A.A.S. 1922, p. 528).

² Vermeersch-Creusen, Epitome, n. 55.

II. Proof. To prove Baptism conferred, if prejudice is done to no one, one witness beyond all exception suffices, or the oath of the baptized person himself, if he received Baptism in adult age (canon 779).

The subject capable of Baptism is every and only wayfaring human being not yet baptized (canon 745, § 1; On the Sacraments in general, n. 38). Having noted these things about the subject generally, we shall speak specifically about the different subjects.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

² Session 5, canon 4.

³ N. 148 (A.A.S., vol. II, p. 39).

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.

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

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

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

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

III. Outside the case of danger of death or insanity, the infant is licitly baptized, provided that his Catholic education is safeguarded: 1. if the parents or tutors, or at least one of them, consents; 2. if the parents, that is, father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, or tutors, are lacking, or have lost their right over him, or can in no way exercise it (canon 750, § 2). It is said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

⁴ Holy Office, 18 July 1892.

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

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

⁷ 28 February 1747.

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

⁹ The cited Instruction of Benedict XIV.

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

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

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

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

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

I. Adults are bound, as soon as it can morally be done, to acquire sufficient instruction for themselves and to receive Baptism. If they are sufficiently instructed and rightly disposed and ask for it, per se they must be baptized, even if they are minors and their parents contradict it (canon 745, § 2). The reason is that with respect to eternal salvation they are in their own right (St. Thomas, II-II, q. 10, a. 12; St. Alphonsus, VI, 128). I said per se, since circumstances or even the common good sometimes require that Baptism be delayed.

The Holy Office,¹ to the question "whether a girl of ten years living in a monastery can safely be admitted to the profession of the Catholic faith, her heretical father being unwilling," responded: "Let the Vicar Apostolic first take care with all his strength to obtain the consent of the girl's father. If consent is not obtained, let him seriously weigh the inconveniences which are foreseen to arise from the admission of such a girl into the Church, both with respect to grave damage to the Catholic school and mission; and insofar as no inconveniences, or only contemptible ones, are foreseen, let him admit her without delay; but insofar as grave inconveniences are foreseen as future, let him defer her admission to the formal and public profession of the Catholic faith, unless danger of death is imminent; and meanwhile let him take care to exhort her to persevere in her good purpose, and to pray God that He deign to remove all obstacles; and at the same time let him see to it that she continue in the monastery, so that in this way she may complete and perfect her Catholic education." Therefore great prudence is necessary, and in cases of this sort a new reason is found for observing canon 744, by force of which the Baptism of adults, where it can conveniently be done, is to be referred to the local Ordinary.

Corollary. Children baptized against the will or without the knowledge of their parents per se can, if they are exposed to dangers of faith, withdraw themselves from their parents and be helped in this by others; but prudence commonly prohibits these things from being put into practice, all the more because civil law commonly stands in the way.

¹ 16 July 1881.

II. With respect to the Baptism of dying adults, these things specifically must be noted:

1. A dying adult who can no longer ask for Baptism, but who either previously or in the present state with some probability manifested an at least more or less explicit intention of receiving Baptism, is to be baptized conditionally; if afterward he recovers and a doubt remains concerning the value of the Baptism conferred, Baptism is again to be conferred conditionally (cf. canons 752, § 3 and 754, § 3).

2. A dying adult who can no longer ask for Baptism, but who with some probability is judged contrite or attrite, or to have the will of employing the means of salvation, in our opinion can, but need not, be baptized conditionally if he more or less explicitly rejects Baptism, as if the case concerns a Jew (n. 41). If that does not obtain, per se he seems to be baptized conditionally (n. 41). I said per se, because prudence can prohibit this doctrine from being brought into practice.

I. The insane and the furious who are such from birth, or at least before attaining the use of reason, are to be baptized, even against the will of their parents insofar as prudence permits it (cf. canon 754, § 1; n. 99). Those who became insane or furious after the use of reason are to be treated as adults, and therefore cannot be baptized unless, before they became insane, they had the desire of receiving Baptism; but if it is certain or probable, even slightly, that this took place, they are to be baptized when danger of death is imminent (canon 754, § 3), or even during the course of life if it is rightly feared that, when danger of death is imminent, Baptism will be omitted.

II. Those who have lucid intervals, while they are in possession of their mind, are to be baptized if they wish (canon 754, § 2). They are also to be baptized, as was said concerning other insane persons, when danger of death is imminent, if before they became insane they showed a desire of receiving Baptism (canon 754, § 3).

III. One who labors under lethargy or frenzy is to be baptized only when awake and willing; but if danger of death threatens, let the things said concerning the insane and concerning those who have lucid intervals be observed (canon 754, § 4).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

⁵ Holy Office, 13 April 1878.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I. Faith. This is clear from these words of Christ in Mark 16:16: "He who believes and has been baptized will be saved." Now explicit faith is required in those things which certainly or probably must be believed by necessity of means: in those certainly to be believed, because otherwise the sacrament would certainly be received fruitlessly; in those probably to be believed, because it would probably be received fruitlessly (vol. I, n. 488).

Since Baptism is fruitless without due faith in the recipient, it is not lawful as a rule to baptize those who lack substantial knowledge of the four mysteries just mentioned. (a) Outside of danger of death, it is never lawful to baptize a person, adult in mind, who is in substantial ignorance of any of these four mysteries. Such a person must first receive instruction. (b) In danger of death, when instruction cannot be given, an adult in substantial ignorance about the Trinity and the Incarnation may be baptized conditionally; for it is probable that explicit knowledge of those two mysteries is not a necessity of means (see 789; Canon 752, Sec.2).

Taxes.—Citizens owe the government particularly the tribute of taxation, and in war that of military service. Taxes are contributions exacted by the public authority from subjects for the purpose of defraying public expenses or promoting the public welfare.

(a) Thus, they are contributions, and hence a tax is not to be confused with a payment (e.g., fares for passage on government railroads), or with a fine (e.g., pecuniary penalty for evasion of customs).

(b) They are exacted from subjects (i.e., from citizens), who are subject on account of their persons as being members of the State, and from aliens, who are subject on account of their goods, as receiving privileges of residence, commerce, passage, etc.

The Sacrament of Baptism.—The first and most essential Sacrament is Baptism (Greek, washing), which may be defined: “The Sacrament of regeneration by water in the word” (Catechism of the Council of Trent, page 163). The internal grace of the Sacrament is expressed by regeneration, the external sign by water and the word.

(a) The effect of Baptism is regeneration, for it cleanses from sin and penalty, and makes him who was a child of wrath to be a child of God and a co-heir of Christ. Baptism also christens, since it seals one with the indelible character of Christian, or member of the Church. As all are under the original curse by birth from Adam, so all who would inherit blessing are in need of this new birth through Christ (see 2661): “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John, iii. 5).

(b) The material element (remote matter) of Baptism is water, that is, any and every form of liquid which in common estimation is pure and unchanged water (e.g., water taken from the ocean, from streams, fountains, or wells; water melted from snow, ice or hail; water gathered from steam, dew, or mist; chemical and mineral water). But animal and plant fluids, though they contain water, are looked upon as distinct substances, and hence Baptism cannot be administered with milk, blood, spittle, sweat, oil, flower or fruit juices (e.g., wine, cider), or extracts of barks or roots. Doubtful matter are liquids that, while in large part composed of water, seem to be generally regarded as not water (e.g., thin soup, tea or coffee, light beer); and hence only in necessity can these be lawfully used for Baptism.

(c) The formal element of Baptism is the word or the formula appointed by Christ. In the Latin Church the words are: “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” Almost every word in this form is necessary for the sense given by Christ, and hence almost any omission makes it necessary, or at least lawful, to repeat Baptism (see 2655, 2682). The declaration of the form demands that the application of the water (proximate matter) be made in the manner of an ablution (i.e., by sprinkling, pouring or immersion). If sprinkling or pouring is used, the body of the recipient (i.e., the skin of his head) must be washed (i.e., the water must touch the head and flow thereon) by the baptizer (i.e., the person who pronounces the words must pour or sprinkle the water). But in case of necessity one may use the opinion that Baptism is valid when the water touches only the hair or some part distinct from the head, or even the afterbirth of a fetus.

Solemn and Private Baptism.—Though in essentials Baptism is but one, it is distinguished in reference to accidental ceremony into solemn and private.

(a) Solemn Baptism is that which is administered with all the rites prescribed by the Liturgy. It requires consecrated water, sponsors and special ceremonies; its minister is a clergyman (ordinarily the parish-priest or Ordinary, extraordinarily a delegated deacon); its place is the baptistery or church. In the Baptism of adults even greater solemnity may be used, for there is a special rite of administration, and the Church recommends that this Baptism be performed when possible by the Ordinary, or at least in cathedral churches, and on the vigil of Easter or Pentecost.

(b) Private Baptism is given in danger of death, or when an adult convert is rebaptized conditionally (Canon 759). It requires only true and natural water, though the water should be as clean and decent as possible, and baptismal or blessed water is preferable; generally the simple form without other rite suffices; sponsors are not necessary, unless they can be had without difficulty, but if possible at least one or two witnesses should be present; the Baptism may be given in the private home or the hospital or other place where the candidate is staying; anyone who has the use of reason and is able to perform the rite may act as minister. When several persons suitable to minister private Baptism are present, the order of preference to be followed is: priest, deacon, subdeacon, cleric, layman, woman; but a woman should be preferred to a man if modesty calls for this, or if the woman is better acquainted with the manner of baptizing. It is considered a serious sin needlessly to prefer a non-priest to a worthy priest, a non-Catholic to a Catholic, an outsider to the parish-priest. If possible, parents should not baptize their own children, since it is more becoming that the spiritual parent and the carnal parent be different persons.

Duties of Parish-Priests as to Baptism.—(a) Before Baptism.—Baptismal water should be blessed, added to or renewed, as the ritual regulations of one’s place require; the faithful should be frequently admonished in sermons of the serious duty of having their infants baptized as soon as possible (Canon 770); the people should also be told (especially midwives, physicians and surgeons) how lay Baptism is to be given validly (Canon 743).

(b) At the Time of Baptism.—Converts preparing for Baptism should be well instructed in the principal religious truths (viz, those contained in the Creed), and precepts (viz., the laws of the Decalogue and of the Church, see 914 sqq.), and prayers (viz, the Our Father, the acts of faith, hope, charity, and contrition); and they should learn the nature and effects of Baptism. The parish-priest may delegate a deacon to baptize solemnly in his place, if there is a sufficient reason, as when he himself is impeded by sickness, absence, or occupation (Canon 741).

(c) After Baptism.—The pastor in virtue of his office has the responsibility of attending to the registration of baptisms in the proper book (Canon 777). The registration should be made without delay—that is, before the sponsors have departed, or immediately after the ceremony, or at least on the same day, if possible; the entry should be made accurately and legibly. The duty of keeping proper baptismal records is considered grave, since important evils would follow on their neglect.

Duties of Parents and Guardians in Reference to Baptism.—(a) As to Administration of Baptism.—Parents are obliged under grave sin not to expose their children to the loss of salvation by undue delay of Baptism (see 2344, 2630). If there is danger of death, a child must be baptized at once; if there is no immediate danger of death, the child must nevertheless, on account of the absolute necessity of Baptism, be baptized as soon as possible. Some moralists consider a needless delay gravely sinful if it exceeds three or four days; others, if it exceeds ten or eleven days. Since infants can be baptized in the womb, a mother is not obliged to undergo the Caesarean operation to ensure Baptism; but she may permit the operation for the sake of a more certain Baptism, unless her obligations to husband or other children will suffer on account of the danger to her life. If a mother dies in pregnancy, the fetus should be extracted and baptized. The duty here rests with the relatives and the physician (Canon 746).

(b) As to Details of Baptism.—Parents should choose suitable names for their children, avoiding such as are obscene, ridiculous, or impious. It is advisable that the name of a Saint or of some other person distinguished for holiness be chosen, for this will be of a spiritual advantage to the child and an edification to others. Parents have the right to appoint the sponsors of their infant children, and should choose only those who are canonically admissible. If Baptism has been administered at home, the parents should, if the child survives, bring it as soon as possible to the church for conditional Baptism, or for the baptismal ceremonies (Canons 759, 760).

Sponsors.—From early times the Church has required in Baptism the use of sponsors, and the reasons for this usage will appear from the duties of these god-parents. The present law (Canons 762 sqq.) retains the ancient tradition, and prescribes as a serious duty that in Solemn Baptism (even of adults, whenever possible) there shall be at least one sponsor (male or female), and that not more than two be used, one a male and the other a female.

(a) Requirements for Validity—Since the sponsor takes obligations, he must have the use of reason and give consent to the office; since he is charged with the duty of spiritual guidance, he must be baptized and not be a member of a heretical or schismatic sect; since he exercises an office of honor, he must not be under the displeasure of the Church by sentence of excommunication or the like; since he is to act as spiritual father, he must not be the parent or spouse of the baptized; since he is to stand for the baptized person, he must be designated by the latter or his parents or by the minister. The sponsor must also indicate (in person or by proxy) his acceptance of the care of the baptized person by physically touching him at the moment of Baptism (either by holding the infant over the font, or by placing a hand on the candidate), or immediately after the Baptism (by raising from the waters or receiving from the hands of the minister the one who has been immersed, or by taking from the font one who has been baptized by pouring). Non-Catholics, therefore, may not be sponsors, but to avoid great offense or other serious evil they may sometimes be admitted as witnesses or honorary sponsors (see 956 sqq.).

(b) Requirements for Lawfulness.—The sponsor should have reached his fourteenth year (unless the minister sees fit for a just cause to admit a younger person), and should know the rudiments of faith; he must be a person of respectability among Catholics, and hence one who is notorious on account of certain penalties or on account of crime or of membership in the Freemasons is not acceptable; he must be free to act as sponsor, and hence religious and clerics in Major Orders must have permission of the superior qualified in each instance to grant this permission.

Duties of Sponsors.—(a) They are obliged to look upon their spiritual children as their perpetual charges, to see to their Christian education and to the fulfillment of the baptismal promises for which they stood surety (Canon 769).

(b) These obligations are grave, since the matter is grave; but, as the care of children falls principally upon the parents, it is only when the parents neglect their duty that the sponsors are held to do what they can for the instruction and correction of their god-children (Catechism of Council of Trent, page 175).

Duties of Adult Recipients of Baptism or of Those Who Have the Use of Reason.—(a) Before Baptism.—An unbaptized person who has faith and who sees the necessity of Baptism, is gravely obliged to ask for Baptism at once, if he is in danger of death, or as soon as he conveniently can, if he is not in danger of death; for since Baptism is the divinely appointed means of entering the Church and of sharing in its privileges, he who would delay it unduly would disobey an important command of God and would be seriously neglectful of his own salvation. For a sufficient reason, however (e.g., for the sake of instruction or probation, or to avoid persecution), Baptism may be delayed even for years; but the catechumen should then make at once an act of contrition or charity so as to obtain the benefit of Baptism of desire. Converts should prepare for Baptism by taking a course of instructions, or, when there is danger of death, a summary instruction (791 sqq.).

(b) At Baptism.—The internal dispositions include, besides intention, faith and repentance: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark, xvi. 16); “Do penance and be baptized” (Acts, ii. 38). There must be an explicit faith in the four chief mysteries (see 789). In this country converts who are being baptized conditionally make an abjuration and profession of faith before Baptism, and go to confession and receive conditional absolution after Baptism. The Code recommends that those who are well receive Baptism fasting; and that, unless grave reason excuses, the neophyte assist at Mass and receive Communion after his Baptism (Canon 753).

(c) After Baptism.—Since Baptism makes one a member of the Church, those who receive it are subject to church laws. The promises made in Baptism are not strictly vows, but an engagement of loyalty to the faith and the commandments (see 2191).

Duties of the Minister of Baptism.—(a) In Reference to the Parents.—If the parents insist on giving an unsuitable name to their child, the pastor should silently add a suitable name of some Saint chosen by himself, and should inscribe both names in the register (Canon 761). A child of non-Catholic parents should not be baptized by Catholics, unless this can be done without injury to the natural right of the parents of training their own children and without danger to the future perseverance of the child. Hence these children, if infants, should not be baptized against the will of their parents unless they are in danger of death and can be baptized without too great inconvenience; but if a child is able to judge for himself, or if there is no parental opposition (at least not of both parents), and there are good reasons to believe that the child will be brought up as a Catholic, he may be baptized (Canons 750, 751).

(b) In Reference to the Sponsors.—If a sponsor cannot be admitted, the pastor must use great kindness and prudence, so as not to give offense. If a non-Catholic has been appointed as sponsor, the difficulty may sometimes be overcome by naming a sacristan or servant as sponsor and permitting the non-Catholic to act as witness.

(c) In Reference to the Capacity of the Recipient.—The minister must give the Sacrament only to those who are capable. Hence, he cannot baptize what is not human (e.g., uterine growths which do not pertain to a fetus), or not living (e.g., a stillborn infant), or not unbaptized (e.g., a convert or an infant about whose valid Baptism there is no reasonable doubt). Speculatively there is some difficulty about Baptism of unborn fetuses, of abortive fetuses, and of monstrosities (e.g., an infant with two heads or two hearts). For, as to the first, it seems that the physically unborn are incapable of spiritual rebirth; as to the second, it seems that the soul of an undeveloped fetus may be sub-human; and, as to the third, it may be doubtful whether a monstrosity is one individual or several individuals. Practically, however, one should proceed on the principle that the Sacraments are for men, and give the benefit of a doubt to the infants by conditional Baptism. Intra-uterine Baptism should not be used except in case of urgent necessity, and it is then permissible to employ a mixture of one part of chloride of mercury with two parts of water to avoid infection. Midwives, nurses, mothers, and physicians should be especially careful to baptize abortive fetuses, and should know how this can be done (see Commentaries on Canons 746-748).

(d) In Reference to the Willingness of the Recipient.—An infant is not required to will the Sacrament, and hence the perpetually insane, who are unable to distinguish between right and wrong, may be baptized without any desire on their part. But an adult must intend to be baptized (see 2671 b). Hence, the minister must inquire about the wishes of an adult candidate, If an unbaptized person is now out of his mind (insane, afflicted with lethargy or sleeping sickness, delirious), but formerly had the use of reason, he is classed with adults, and his intention has to be considered. He should not be baptized, therefore, until he comes to himself, unless there is danger of death and signs of a desire to receive Baptism were given before (Canons 745, 754).

(e) In Reference to the Worthiness of the Recipient.—The minister should remind the candidate of the duty of attrition. If the person who asks for Baptism wishes to retain certain habits (e.g., superstition, concubinage, or unlawful business) which cannot be reconciled with Christianity, he cannot be regarded as suited for Baptism. But in danger of death good faith should not be uselessly disturbed.

(f) In Reference to the Pastor.—Solemn Baptism either in or out of one’s territory may not be given without permission from the proper pastor who has jurisdiction (Canons 738-740). And a minister who is not the pastor of the baptized person must send notice of the Baptism to the pastor, as soon as possible, if the latter was not present (Canon 778).

(g) In Reference to Himself and the Sacrament.—The minister should inform himself, if necessary, about the existence or validity of a previous Baptism, and he should observe the ceremonies, essential and accidental, of his Rite. Foundlings should be baptized conditionally, unless it is certain that they have been already baptized validly (Canon 749). The internal dispositions of intention and state of grace are necessary, while for baptism of adults fasting is advisable (Canon 753).

In doubt one must stand for that for which presumption stands. For presumption, taken from things ordinarily happening, or from other circumstances of the person and the thing, produces moral certainty, or at least probability. "In obscure matters one is accustomed to look at what is more likely, or what usually happens." L. 114 de R. I.; R. I. 14 in 6. It is a certain anticipated proof of a thing from indications, before direct proofs. Therefore presumption exhibits a thing as true and stands for that side which is not bound by itself to prove the contrary fact, but transfers that burden of proving to the other side. For whenever something is known to preexist which by its nature perseveres until it is taken away by some contrary fact, that thing is thought to persevere as long as that contrary fact is not established, which consequently must be proved by the adverse side.

Hence, if you are accustomed at such a time diligently to recite the breviary, and you doubt whether you have recited some part, presumption favors you and exempts you from the obligation of reciting or repeating. If an insane person, but one who has lucid intervals, makes a vow and afterward doubts whether he made the vow while master of himself, he is not obligated so long as it does not appear that he was master of himself. L. 1. n. 26. Nevertheless in the forum of penance, in which, as S. Thomas says 4.

D. 17. a. 3. q. 3, one must stand by the word of the penitent for himself and against himself, presumption yields to the truth affirmed by the penitent. - Cf. 204; Lugo De Poenit. d. 20. n. 17. 19; L. 1. 3. n. 270, l. 6. n. 600 par. Limitant. Likewise in the case of doubt, the baptism of spouses is not presumed in relation to a marriage, if the non-Catholic party or parties had parents belonging to a sect which rejects baptism; on the contrary it is presumed if they had parents belonging to a sect which admits baptism, and they were zealous in that sect. S. O. Aug. 1, 1883; Collect. S. C. de P. F. n. 662; E. M. n. 1016.

You will resolve: In doubt whether you took some food or drink, and likewise in doubt whether you took food or drink after midnight, you can receive the Eucharist. For unless the fact is proved in each case, liberty possesses. L. 1. 1. n. 38. 39; Elbel 166. 167; Amort. Theol. t. 2. d. 5. 9. 4, who observes these things at the end: "Yet I say that he would sin at least venially who, for the pleasure of mere drinking, should thus traffic around the laws of the Church, exposing himself to the danger of at least material transgression; and if he does this from custom or from a resolve always to operate in this way, no other reasonable cause concurring, for example, thirst, infirmity, he will sin mortally, because such a resolve argues interpretative contempt and a defect of charity toward God and the Church, whose honor he stains."

Busemb. apud La Croix, l. 1. n. 470. VI. Indeed, although it is licit to use a probable opinion against a law, it is nevertheless not licit to act in fraud of the law, voluntarily procuring a state of doubt against the law, lest someone be bound to observe the law. Doubtful baptism, in order to a marriage already entered or to be entered, is held as valid; and therefore a marriage is pronounced valid or invalid according to various circumstances.

The marriage of one doubtfully baptized with one not baptized must be held invalid. On the contrary, the marriage of two doubtfully baptized persons, and of one doubtfully baptized with one baptized, must be held valid. S. O. Nov. 17, 1830; Sept. 9, 1868; Sept. 18, 1872; July 7, 1880; Sept. 18, 1890; Apr. 12, 1899; Collect. S. C. P. F. n. 1872; E. M. n. 1016. But a doubtful marriage, because of the common good, is commonly held as valid. But because of the most excellent good of religion, the doubtful marriage of polygamous infidels who are converted to the faith is declared invalid. Collect. S. C. de P. F. n. 1301. 1304. 1332. 2184.

You will resolve: It is wicked to throw oneself into a river, with certain danger of death, in order to baptize a child. For this would be directly to take life from oneself; namely because first one posits a means which directly and immediately tends to the killing of oneself, so that afterward, once that is posited, he may be able to administer baptism. Likewise it is wicked to do or omit something with the design that death be accelerated. But it is lawful to serve those infected with plague, to go to dangerous places of missions, and to undertake a dangerous journey from a grave and proportionate cause, as Christopher Columbus and others did. L. 366.

What is baptism? - The word baptismus or baptisma signifies the same as immersion and washing; whence baptism is also called a laver, because it wipes away sins. Baptism is defined: "The sacrament of regeneration through water in the word." Roman Catechism 5; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 66, a. 1; E. M.

How many kinds of baptism are there? - Baptism is threefold. For from the sacrament of baptism, or baptism of water, so called from its proper matter, there is distinguished baptism of spirit and of blood. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 66, a. 11.

What is baptism of spirit? - "Baptism of spirit is perfect conversion to God through contrition, or love of God above all things, with the explicit or implicit desire for true baptism of water, whose place it supplies as regards the remission of guilt, but not as regards imprinting the character, nor as regards removing every debt of punishment: it is called of spirit, because it is done through the impulse of the Holy Spirit, who is called flamen. But that men are saved through baptism of spirit is of faith." L. 96; E. M.

What is baptism of blood; what are its required conditions? - Baptism of blood is the shedding of blood or death endured for faith, or for another Christian virtue. But this baptism is equated with true baptism, because as if ex opere operato, after the manner of baptism, it remits guilt and punishment. As if, because martyrdom does not operate so strictly and properly as the sacraments do, but from a certain privilege by reason of real imitation of the Passion of Christ. Therefore martyrdom profits even infants. The Church honors the Holy Innocents as true martyrs.

For the martyrdom of an adult, that it be such as is necessary for salvation, five things are required: 1. the infliction of death; 2. acceptance of the same from a pious cause; 3. that one not resist the tyrant; 4. that by faith he hold the truth for which he suffers; 5. legitimate disposition for grace. But what such a disposition is, is controverted. The first opinion teaches that true contrition, perfect from love of God above all things, is necessary. The second holds that the will of suffering for Christ suffices, and that there is no need of another penance, even if the man remembers his sins. The third asserts that at least attrition is required, if the man is conscious of sin.

Moreover, contrition can be required for the fruit of martyrdom in two ways: first directly, as a necessary disposition; second indirectly, as a work necessary for avoiding a new sin. - If the one for whom martyrdom is imminent is in mortal sin, contrition is necessary for him for the fruit of martyrdom indirectly, or at least attrition which is thought to be contrition, as a work necessary for avoiding a new sin which would impede its fruit. The reason is that if ever the precept of contrition obliges, it does so especially in danger of death. - Yet contrition is not necessary in itself and directly as a disposition for the fruit of martyrdom, but attrition is required and suffices. The first reason is that the Fathers equate the martyrdom of adults with baptism in its force of destroying sin. Here it must be noted that the very endurance of death according to itself is compared with baptism, and no lesser force in washing away sins is attributed to it than to baptism; nor is this force attributed to internal contrition, but to the external work. Therefore, just as baptism does not require contrition in order to confer grace, so neither does martyrdom. The second reason is that it is certain that for remission of guilt some penance is always required in adults from Trent sess. 14, c. 1.

• Theol. Wirceb. 57 ff.; Suarez d. 29, s. 1, 2; L. 95, 97; St. Thomas Quodl. 6, a. 4; 2.2, q. 124; 3 p., q. 66, a. 12 ad 2.

Note: "Concerning those who die from charity in service of the plague-stricken, the Roman Martyrology, Feb. 28, says: 'Whom religious faith has been accustomed to venerate as martyrs.'" L. 100.

What are the effects of baptism? - Baptism is spiritual regeneration. Hence through the infusion of sanctifying grace: 1. it destroys every guilt. 2. It remits every punishment due to sins. Wherefore it is grave to impose satisfactions on the baptized. 3. It imprints a character; whence it cannot be repeated. 4. It makes one of the body of the Church. It is clear as regards the first from C. Maiores 3, de Bapt. etc.; Trent sess. 5, decree on original sin; sess. 14, c. 2; as regards the second from Trent sess. 5, the cited decree, sess. 6, c. 14, and from Florence in the Decree for the Armenians; as regards the third from Florence, ibid., and from Trent sess. 7, c. 9 de R.; as regards the fourth from Trent sess. 14, c. 2, and from Florence, Decree for the Armenians. - Therefore baptism is as it were the gate of the Church and of the kingdom of heaven. Hence if someone has not been validly baptized, he cannot validly receive any other sacrament. C. 1, 3, de Presb. non bapt.; Florence, Decree for the Armenians; St. Thomas Suppl. q. 35, a. 3. - Trent sess. 7, c. 1, 6-11, 13, 14; Roman Catechism 42 ff.; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 69; q. 68, a. 5; E. M.

Is baptism necessary? - Baptism of water in reality or in desire, from divine institution, is altogether necessary for salvation, by necessity of means. This is clear from the words of Christ, John 3:5: Unless someone has been reborn of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. And from Trent sess. 6, c. 4; sess. 7, c. 5: If anyone shall say that baptism is free, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema. - Decree of the Holy Office Lamentabili, July 3, 1907, prop. 42, 43; Roman Catechism 21, 31; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 68, a. 1, 2; Commentary on Necessity of Means.

What is the remote matter of baptism? - The valid matter of baptism is only true and natural water, fit for washing. This is clear from the words of Christ, John 3:5, and from the Councils, especially from Florence in the Decree for the Armenians, and from Trent sess. 7, c. 2; Roman Catechism 2 ff.;

L. 153; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 66, a. 3, 4. - The licit matter of baptism, outside the case of necessity, is only blessed or consecrated water, mixed with the sacred oil of catechumens and chrism according to the rite of the Church, at least for solemn baptism. This is clear from the Roman Ritual and the practice of the Church. - But he certainly sins gravely by the sin of sacrilege who, without grave necessity, uses impure, turbid, or muddy water, although this matter is valid. L. 102; E. M.

Note: In danger of death, if certainly valid matter cannot be had, doubtful matter can and must be used under this condition: If this matter is sufficient. But then even the lowest degree of probability concerning the validity of the matter suffices, because in necessity one's neighbor must be aided in the best manner in which it can be done. But if the one baptized in this way survives, once there is supply of certainly valid matter, he must again be baptized conditionally: If you are not baptized, I baptize you, etc. C. De quibus 2, de Bapt. etc. - L. 103.

You will resolve: Valid matter is: water of springs, wells, rivers, the sea, ponds, marshes, lakes, cisterns; water dissolved from ice, snow, or hail, because it preserves the same substance, although it has been accidentally changed as regards color, taste, or odor; sulphurous or mineral water; water collected from vapor, dew, or flowing in rainy weather from a wall, leaves, etc.; turbid water mixed with another substance, provided water is the truly and certainly predominant matter, so that according to the use or estimation of men it can still be called water. - Valid and licit matter, where there is a true danger of disease, is water with corrosive bichloride of mercury, in one thousand parts of water. Holy Office, Aug. 21, 1901. - Invalid matter is milk, blood, tears, sweat, saliva, spittle, urine; wine, oil, beer, thick broth from fat, etc.; mud, ink. - Doubtful matter is very thin broth, lye, weak beer, water from dissolved salt, humor flowing from a vine and other plants. L. 103, 104; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 66, a. 4; C. Non ut 5, de Bapt. etc.; E. M.

Is water produced by chemical art, distilled, poisoned, suitable matter for baptism? - Resp. In the affirmative. For it is true water. - L. 104, 106.

Is ice or snow, not dissolved, suitable matter? - Resp. Some deny it, others doubt, "therefore they say that in necessity it can be used conditionally." L. 104.

What is the proximate matter of baptism? - The proximate matter of baptism is washing, which can be done in three ways, namely by immersion, sprinkling, and pouring, according to the practice of the diverse Churches, so that by the moral judgment of men the baptized person is judged to have been washed. This is clear from the words of the form, and the perpetual practice of the Church, and also from Paul to the Ephesians 5:26: Cleansing by the laver of water in the word of life. Roman Ritual, de Forma Bapt.; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 66, a. 7, 8.

Can an infant in danger of death be baptized in the womb of the mother? - "If the infant," says the Roman Ritual, "has put forth the head, and danger of death is imminent, let him be baptized on the head; nor afterward, if he comes out alive, is he to be baptized again." - If, on the contrary, he is wholly enclosed in the womb and is baptized by washing the body of the mother, "it is certain that the baptism is not valid, because the infant is a person distinct from the mother." - If the womb can in some way be penetrated, and the child wrapped in the afterbirth is reached by means of some instrument, he is probably validly baptized, because that is held as part of the infant.

But because many hold it simply as part of the mother, therefore it also probably is not valid. - The same variety of opinions exists concerning baptism to be conferred on a fetus who has been brought forth wrapped in its own membrane; namely whether it suffices to confer baptism upon the membrane itself, or rather whether this should be broken, so that the ovular matter may be immersed in water, while the form is pronounced at the same time, and then the fetus is drawn out from the water. - If by means of some instrument the afterbirth is cut and the body itself of the infant is reached by the water, it is still more true that baptism is conferred validly. The reason is that such an infant, since he already exists as a man wayfarer, can well receive baptism. But since the matter is not certain, if afterward the living infant is brought into the light, he will have to be baptized again conditionally. L. 107, 123; Pignatelli Consult. 153, tom. 1; Benedict XIV, de Syn. l. 7, c. 5; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 68, a. 11; E. M.

Is baptism valid if someone casts an infant into a well or river and pronounces the form? - The first opinion denies it; the second opinion affirms it. "Each is probable." L. 106; La Croix 265. Yet such baptism is truly doubtful; for since there is not immersion and emergence, washing or cleansing is lacking.

Is it licit to throw an infant into a river in order to baptize him?

Resp. In the negative, "although he is soon about to die without baptism, because it is never licit for any cause whatever directly to kill the innocent... But although it is not licit to cast the child into a river, nevertheless it is licit to baptize with water even cold as ice, if no other can be had, a child soon to die, even if it were feared that from this death would be hastened." L. 106. For the action is of itself indifferent, having a twofold effect, and in order to obtain eternal life a small loss of temporal life can well be neglected. - Elbel 13, 14.

Is baptism conferred by application of a moistened hand valid? - Resp. In the negative. The reason is that washing is not had, which is the proximate matter of baptism.

Is baptism valid if the baptizer were to wash a part of the body of the one to be baptized by the motion of a moistened finger? - Many affirm; because washing is sufficiently had. - But there are not lacking those who judge the baptism doubtful, because that washing is very imperfect. It is rather an anointing than a washing. Hence baptism is also doubtful if someone is baptized with two or three drops of water. - Holy Office, Nov. 8, 1770; Dec. 1, 1898; L. 103 IV, 107, q. 6; Elbel 16; E. M.

Is baptism valid by applying cotton wet with water to the forehead? - Resp. In the affirmative, if water successively flows over the forehead, as can easily be done by pressing the cotton somewhat; for then true washing is had. In the negative, if there is mere contact of water upon the forehead; for then washing is in no way had. - Holy Office, Nov. 8, 1770; Suarez de Sacr. d. 20, s. 2; E. M.

Is baptism valid if the pastor or another minister places the infant under falling rain? - Resp. In the affirmative, for in that way he truly washes the infant. Yet it would be better to collect water in the palm of the hand and wash the infant's head with it. On the contrary, baptism would be invalid if conferred by snow, frost, or hail applied to the head and dissolved by natural heat; for washing would not be had from the action of the minister himself. L. 106.

Is triple washing required for baptism? - Certainly it is not required for validity; for one washing suffices so that someone is judged truly washed. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 66, a. 8. - But it is required for liceity, and indeed under grave obligation, where this triple pouring of water is prescribed, as in the Roman Ritual. Yet these things seem to be understood of solemn baptism.

Is baptism valid if the water touches the clothes or hair of the one to be baptized? - If the water touches only the clothes, baptism is certainly invalid; because thus no one would say that the man is washed. - But more probably it is valid if the water touches the hair. But in practice the safer part is to be followed.

Hence if the one to be baptized is hairy, either let the priest part his hair with the fingers of the left hand while pouring water with the right, or let him baptize him on the forehead. And this also seems to be done if the infant's head abounds in an oily crust which prevents washing on the skin. Lugo Resp. Mor. l. 1, d. 1; L. 107, q. 3; Collectanea of S. C. de P. F. n. 642; E. M.

Is baptism conferred on another part than the head valid? - Resp. More probably in the affirmative, especially if baptism is conferred on some more principal part, e.g., on the breast, shoulders, neck. According as the part is less or more principal, baptism is more or less doubtful. But there will always be some doubt if it is not conferred on the head, since the integrity of life fully consists in the head; "because washing of the man absolutely and simply is of the substance of the sacrament." Suarez de Bapt. d. 20, s. 2, par. Quare; Roman Ritual, de Bapt. parv., par. Nemo. Hence "by precept the head is to be washed, which the practice of the Church has." L. 105. And if necessity has compelled baptism to be conferred on another part than the head, afterward, if it can be done, baptism would have to be repeated conditionally. - Holy Office, Nov. 8, 1770; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 66, a. 7 ad 3; L. 107, q. 4.

What is the form of baptism? - The form of baptism is: I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. But among the Greeks it is said: Such a servant of Christ is baptized in the name, etc.; CC. Si quis 1, Non ut 5, de Bapt.; Florence, Decree for the Armenians; Trent sess. 7, c. 4. "Several theologians, among whom is St. Alphonsus, think that it is venial to omit the word Amen at the end of the form of baptism, which word however is not found in the Roman Ritual. Hence it is asked whether it is to be used or omitted? Resp. Strictly in the case, let the Roman Ritual be observed." S. R. C., June 9, 1853, Cochinchina, ad 2, n. 3014. - Ferraris v. Baptismus n. 1 ff.; Lugo Resp. Mor. l. 1, d. 3; E. M.

Note: There are five things which are signified in the pronouncing of the form, according to which its validity must be weighed: 1. The person baptizing, at least implicitly, which is not neglected in the form of the Greeks, since "is baptized" has the same value as "is baptized by me." - 2. The act of baptizing, because otherwise the form would not have connection with the matter, nor determine it, since washing can be referred to various ends. - 3. The person to be baptized, because as the washing, so also the form must turn upon a certain person. S. C. de P. F., Sept. 11, 1841. - 4. The unity of the divine nature, which is done through the phrase "in the name." - 5. The Trinity of persons: and this explicitly and distinctly in common words, L. 108, namely the expressed invocation of the three divine persons.

S. C. de P. F., June 23, 1830; Florence, De variis formis dubiis. Cf. L. 108-112, 119, 120, and C. Debitum 4, de Bapt. - "And therefore no one can baptize himself." St. Thomas 3 p., q. 82, a. 4 ad 2. - It is expedient that midwives baptize in the common and vernacular tongue. But they say that these forms are valid: Io ti abbattezzo... S. C. C., May 12, 1753; Ego te baptismo... S. U. I., May 22, 1871; Io ti battesimo... Io ti battezzo nome di Padre..., with in omitted, and di for del, the same Sacred Congregation, Sept. 12, 1801, or del nome del Padre..., or in domine Patris..., in nom. (abbreviated) Patris..., L. 110. Mi te abbattezzo in nome del Padre, e del Figliuolo, dello Spirito Santo, with et omitted before the Holy Spirit, S. C. C., May 12, 1753. - The form is invalid if someone were to say: I will the sacrament of baptism of sins to be ministered to you, in the name... Holy Office, June 23, 1840. If someone for baptizo says mergo or tingo, St. Alphonsus 109 thinks that it is valid, because the words are synonymous. But mergo does not seem to signify the sacramental action of washing, but only the material action of immersing, if baptism is ministered by immersion. But tingo properly signifies to imbue something with color.

Is baptism valid if in the form the pronoun ego, the particle in, or the particle et before only the invocation of the Son, or also before the invocation of the Holy Spirit, is omitted? - Resp. To the first: In the affirmative; for it is implicitly contained in the verb, but it is venial. - To the second: there are not lacking those who deny that it is valid, because when the preposition in is omitted, the meaning is varied; for then the sense is not that one is baptized in the invocation of the Trinity, but that one is baptized by the authority, power, and command of the Trinity. But more probably it must be affirmed that it is valid according to the character of the Latin language, in which the preposition in can be omitted; so much the more because, even with the preposition in still expressed, that phrase "in the name" remains equivocal and can signify both in invocation and in power, as Christ signified when he said: In my name they shall cast out demons, etc., Luke 16:17. But it is determined by the intention of the minister. And it is held valid from the Holy Office, May 22, 1871. - To the third: It is valid, because the distinction of the Persons is sufficiently explained. S. C. C., Sept. 12, 1801; Holy Office, Aug. 3, 1889. - To the fourth: Many say that it is valid, because again the distinction of the persons is sufficiently explained. For on the one hand the character of the Latin language altogether admits that omission, and on the other the names Father, Son, Holy Spirit, as relatively opposed among themselves, already signify the distinction of the persons.

But many others say that it is not valid; for since the name Holy Spirit of itself is not notional, but belongs both to the Father and to the Son, unless the particle and is expressed at least before the last name, the distinction of the three Persons is not sufficiently expressed. For the first opinion there is also brought S. C. C., May 12, 1753; Sept. 12, 1801; May 12, 1823, by which baptism was declared valid although the particle and, pronounced before the Son, had been omitted before the Holy Spirit. - L. 111, 112. Cf. here the preceding number.

Is baptism conferred with these forms valid: I baptize you in Father; with Father; from the part of the Father; in the power of the Father, etc.; In the name of the Father through the Son and the Holy Spirit? - The baptism is not valid, or at least is doubtful; because in these forms there is not had the invocation of the Most Holy Trinity and the unity of the divine nature, although the distinction of the Persons is had. Scavini, Milan 1874, v. 3, n. 59, reports that it was answered by the Sacred Penitentiary and by the Sacred Congregation of the Council, indeed by Benedict XIV himself, Dec. 7, 1741, that the form cum nomine Patris, Filii etc. is valid; but D'Annibale, ed. 3, p. 3, n. 272, observes that as long as these things are not authentically clear, one ought not recede from the common opinion. But Lehmkuhl, ed. 11, n. 89, also says that it has several times been decided by S. C. C. and by the Holy Office that cum nomine does not impede validity.

Is baptism valid with this form: I baptize you in the name of the Father, in the name of the Son, in the name of the Holy Spirit; or in the name of the Father, and in the name of the Son, and in the name of the Holy Spirit; or I baptize you in the name of the Father, I baptize you in the name of the Son, I baptize you in the name of the Holy Spirit? - Resp. In the affirmative, far more probably; because the locutions are altogether equivalent, if they are considered grammatically. But since the unity of the divine essence is less correctly expressed, if the theological signification and the mystery are attended to, they could seem at least doubtful, although all those locutions are theologically true and contain Catholic truth. Cf. Roman Ritual, Ord. Comm. Anim. Nevertheless S. C. C., May 4, 1641, declared the second form valid; Holy Office, Jan. 11, 1882, declared the third proposed form valid. Whence it follows that the first also is to be held valid. - L. 111; Suarez d. 21, s. 3, par. Sed quid; E. M.

Is the form of baptism valid if you say: In the name of the Begetter and of the Begotten and of the Spirated or Proceeding? - St. Thomas 2.2, q. 16, a. 5 ad 7 denies it, because "just as water is taken for baptism because its use for washing is more common, so for signifying the three Persons in the form of baptism those names are assumed by which the Persons have more commonly been accustomed to be named in that language." Yet baptism is valid in the name of the Father and of the Word and of the Paraclete Spirit, or Spirit.

Is the form of baptism valid if it is said: I baptize you in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, or in the name of Christ? - Resp. To the first: In the negative, at least more probably, because in such a form the individual persons of the Holy Trinity are not expressed sufficiently distinctly, since the word Trinity signifies the Persons only confusedly and implicitly; but Christ willed that they be expressed distinctly, as is clear from Matthew, the last chapter. - To the second: In the negative also a fortiori, because the Trinity is in no way expressed by the phrase "in the name of Christ." Thus all, at least now after St. Thomas 3 p., q. 66, a. 6, and it is clear from C. Si revera 80, de Consecrat., Dist. 4. - L. 111, 112.

Who is the minister of baptism? - The minister of baptism is one kind ordinary and another extraordinary. The extraordinary minister is twofold: namely a minister of solemnity and of necessity. - Every priest and only a priest, by force of his ordination, is the ordinary minister of baptism. This is clear from Florence, Decree of Union, and also from the universal practice of the Church. - A deacon, unless he is a pastor, is an extraordinary minister and a minister of solemnity, that is, able to baptize solemnly, but only from the delegation of the pastor, at least interpretative, and from a grave cause. This is clear from the Roman Pontifical, the instruction of the bishop to deacons in ordination, etc.; C. Diaconos 13, Dist. 93. Cf. C. n. 527. Solemnly to baptize, i.e., by observing the rites and ceremonies prescribed by the Church. - Any human being using reason, whether man or woman, whether Catholic or heretic, whether faithful or unbeliever, is an extraordinary minister of baptism, so that he can always validly, and in necessity also licitly, baptize. Florence, Decree for the Armenians.

Although every priest by force of ordination has the power of baptizing, nevertheless he cannot licitly use it, even privately, outside the case of necessity, unless deputed by the Ordinary or by the proper pastor for baptizing. For the legitimate minister is only the Ordinary or one's own pastor. From the Roman Ritual, de Bapt. adult.: "the baptism of adults, where it can conveniently be done, should be referred to the bishop, so that, if it pleases him, it may be conferred more solemnly by him; otherwise let the pastor himself baptize, with the fixed ceremony." Florence, Decree for the Armenians; Roman Ritual, de Min. bapt. - At present the minister regularly is the pastor, Roman Ritual ibid., and it is grave. Clement I, de Priv. - L. 116, 236; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 67; E. M.

You will resolve: Neither a pastor nor a bishop, without commission, outside his own parish and diocese, or within it, licitly baptizes subjects of another. And therefore parents also sin who without permission of their own prelate bring their offspring to another to be baptized, since they violate the right of the pastor. L. 114. - A stranger can be baptized with the permission, whether expressed or reasonably presumed, of his own priest. L. 115. Religious can baptize in a case of necessity, or with the same permission of the pastor and of their own superior, since this is prohibited by no law. L. ib. "A priest baptizing without permission outside necessity, even without solemnity, sins gravely." L. 115.

If parents have domicile in one place, quasi-domicile in another, and in this latter place the woman has given birth, must the infant be baptized in this place? - The infant can be baptized in the place of quasi-domicile or of domicile. The reason is that each is the proper pastor in order to receiving baptism and the other sacraments. C. Significavit fin., de Paroch. L. 115. - "Children of families, generally speaking, must be baptized and educated in the rite of the father," if the parents belong to different rites, such as the Roman, Ruthenian, Armenian, etc. S. C. de P. F., Apr. 11, 1894. Cf. here 431.

In which parish must an infant be baptized if the parents have neither domicile nor quasi-domicile, or are distant from it? - "Pilgrims, or those who do not have domicile (vagrants), can be baptized in the church which they choose, from cap. Nec numerus q. 3... But if a woman by chance gives birth in a village not her own, the offspring is to be baptized by the pastor of that village; nevertheless, if that village is little distant from her own village, e.g., by two or three hours, the offspring can also be baptized in her own church," L. 114; indeed must be, if there is no grave inconvenience.

Does a cleric who is not a deacon, and a deacon without commission solemnly baptizing, incur irregularity? - Resp. To the first: In the affirmative. This is clear from C. Si quis 1, de Cler. non Ord. min. - To the second: some deny it from the cited Si quis. But more probably others affirm it from the same C. Si quis, according to the opinion which St. Alphonsus 116 says is most common. But cf. de Irregul. n. 1323.

Does a layman solemnly baptizing contract irregularity? - Resp. In the negative. For in law nothing is said; indeed the contrary is suggested. L. 116, 754.

What order is to be observed among the ministers of baptism in a case of necessity? - In the Roman Ritual it is had thus: "If a priest is present, let him be preferred to a deacon, a deacon to a subdeacon, a cleric to a layman, and a man to a woman, unless for the sake of modesty it would be fitting that a woman rather than a man baptize an infant not wholly brought forth, or unless the woman knew better the form and manner of baptizing." In the presence of the bishop, a priest can baptize, because this is the office of a priest. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 67, a. 4.

Is it grave if the father or mother baptize when another is present? - Resp. In the affirmative, by reason of spiritual kinship. Wherefore an external person, even a woman, is to be preferred to them. L. 117, 150; La Croix 277, 358; Viva q. 1, a. 5, n. 4.

"1. Whether one is validly baptized with water which, although it wholly keeps its liquidity, nevertheless gives forth a great and very unpleasant stench? 2. Whether, with the validity of Baptism with such water posited, and another good water enriched with sacred Chrism not being had, it is better to use that putrid water than pure and natural water not enriched with Chrism? Resp. That Baptisms conferred with corrupt water were valid, although illicit outside the case of necessity; and in the case of necessity natural water is to be preferred, but provision is to be made by renewal of the water of the Baptismal Font, according to the Roman ritual." S. O. 17 Apr. 1839.

"A fetus, baptized in the womb upon the crown of the head, after birth is to be rebaptized again under condition." S. C. C. 12 July 1794.

"Whether it is necessary that the mystery of the Eucharist be explained to an adult to be baptized? Resp. Adults, outside the danger of death, speaking per se, are bound, unless such a motive urges to the contrary that delay until after Baptism is judged expedient by a prudent Missionary. As regards one dying, likewise they are bound, unless either time does not suffice, or such disturbance of mind is foreseen in him that it could distract him from the reception of Baptism." S. C. de P. F. 10 May 1703.

"1. It is not lawful to baptize an adult Barbarian, rude and stupid, not explicitly believing in the Lord Jesus Christ; but the Missionary is bound to instruct him concerning all those things which are necessary by necessity of means, according to the capacity of the one to be baptized. 2. It is not lawful to baptize a sick Barbarian, if the Missionary is morally certain that he has not sufficiently, according to the measure of his own capacity, understood the mysteries of the Christian Religion explained to him, or does not sufficiently believe them, and from the sole motive of not contradicting promises that he will observe the commandments of the same Religion. But if the Missionary prudently believes that the sick Barbarian, when he says, I believe and I will do, then really sufficiently believes, and seriously promises that he will observe as above, he must be baptized. But if the Missionary doubts concerning the aforesaid things, and time does not suffice to instruct him better, and the danger of death is imminent, he also must be baptized under condition." S. C. de P. F. 14 May 1703.

"Father Didacus of Varallo, who presided for many years over the Tripolitan missions, reported to this S. C. de P. F. that not without grave detriment to souls very many doubts had arisen among the ministers of the divine word of those regions concerning Baptism: whether and in what manner, according to the diverse circumstances both of persons and of danger, it is lawful for them, or even incumbent on them by duty, to come to the aid, by the saving laver, of the necessity of infidels who cannot consult for themselves.

After a diligent examination had been applied to these doubts, comprised under ten heads, but in addition entangled with many questions, as it were incidental, the S. C. easily recognized that they did not need so much any new sanction or definition as a certain simple explanation of the common doctrine, which, proceeding from the ancient custom of the Church concerning Baptism to be furnished to the children of infidels, has often in like manner been declared and confirmed by decrees of Sacred Congregations and Apostolic Constitutions, the sum of which Benedict XIV has most recently embraced in two Decretals, and, by opportune divisions according to the variety of cases and circumstances, has illustrated as by distinct lights. And from these indeed three documents especially are at hand more closely pertaining to the subject matter, from which, in every doubt of this kind, sacred ministers will have to seek the norm of taking counsel and acting. They are: 1. Outside imminent danger of death, it is not lawful, when parents are unwilling or unaware, to baptize the infant children of those infidels who either live by their own laws, or are subject to the rule or dominion of Christians only civilly. 2. Nor are infant children of this kind to be baptized, even when offered freely and spontaneously by the parents, if after Baptism they are to be left in the power of their infidel parents. 3. Baptism is thus to be imparted to the same infants brought into proximate danger of life, provided that this is done without scandal; all which things will plainly be established from the decrees to be brought forward below. But lest in the application of this general doctrine to peculiar cases any place for ambiguity be left, the Sacred Congregation judged that satisfaction must be made to the individual articles of the questions proposed by as many responses.

I. The first head of the questions comprises these three doubts. 1. Whether children of infidels who are insane from birth, concerning whom there is no hope that thereafter they will possess some interval of reason, can lawfully be baptized. 2. Whether sacred ministers are bound to inquire about insane persons of this kind, and to baptize the same. 3. Whether by themselves or through others.

Resp. As regards the first, the common opinion of the Doctors, with St. Thomas as leader, 3 p., q. 68, art. 12, is that those insane from birth, in whom neither a present use of reason appears nor a future use is hoped, are counted among infants, and as regards the reception of Baptism are in the same case through their whole life as children who are situated in proximate danger of death: for just as those children, who have not yet attained the use of reason, cannot consult for themselves, so neither can those insane persons at any time of life provide for themselves, because, as being perpetually insane, they never attain the use of reason. Therefore, insofar as that impotence of reason is judged truly by a probable and prudent judgment, they can lawfully be baptized. For as regards insane persons of this kind there is no place for that reason which generally stands in the way lest the children of infidels be lawfully baptized when their parents are unwilling, namely that for the sake of preventing perversion they would have to be withdrawn from the care and power of their parents not without offense to the parents: this reason, I say, does not apply as regards the perpetually insane, whom their perpetual insanity withdraws from the danger of perversion, and therefore they can safely be left in the care and power of their parents. Nevertheless sacred ministers will have to conduct themselves cautiously and prudently in either inquiring about or baptizing them, lest the hatred of infidels and cruelty against the faithful be stirred up against the Christian religion.

As regards the second, since it should above all be proposed to sacred ministers that they gain for Christ and the Church as many souls as they can, there is no room for doubt that, for inquiring about and baptizing insane persons of this kind, they are bound to provide all that moral diligence which the nature of their own office requires in matters of gravest moment: that caution always being employed which the laws of Christian prudence prescribe for avoiding scandal.

Third. To this those assigned to missions are bound either by themselves, insofar as they are not legitimately impeded, or through others, whose vicarious work they will employ most laudably especially when they have perceived that the salvation of the insane will be consulted more conveniently and safely through others than through themselves.

II. In the second doubt it is asked how ministers of the missions should conduct themselves toward the insane children of infidels whose insanity is not so stupid that they do not give forth some indications of reason, especially in those things which pertain to the manner of animal life, in which namely a certain weak force and faculty of reason betrays itself, such as appears in children of four or five years, and who therefore are not sufficiently able to grasp the principal mysteries of the faith. It is asked in addition whether ministers sin who, holding insane persons of this kind as if foreknown, cast away all care and solicitude for them.

Resp. Where a difficulty arises in judging, as it were, the degree of insanity, the matter is finally to be recalled to this, that it be explored whether those concerning whom the question is asked possess such a use of reason that they can recognize the distinction of moral good and evil, and therefore in choosing evil can render themselves guilty of fault. Hence a threefold case emerges: for either it is morally established that they possess such a faculty, or it is morally established that they do not possess it, or finally, after sufficient examination, it remains doubtful and uncertain whether they possess it.

1. And so, if by prudent judgment they are considered capable of sin, the rule which St. Thomas prescribes, 3 p., q. 68, art. 12, must be used, in these words: Certain persons exist who, although they are not of an altogether sound mind, nevertheless use reason to such an extent that they can think concerning their salvation, and understand the power of the sacrament: concerning such persons the same judgment is to be made as concerning those who are of sound mind, who are baptized when willing, but not when unwilling. These persons therefore are to be led to Baptism in the manner of adults. In this matter the rules which the Church has prescribed, and which, as being clearly explained in the Roman Catechism, it does not pertain to this place to repeat, must altogether be observed.

2. If by prudent judgment they are not considered capable of fault, like children who have not yet attained sufficient use of reason, a distinction must be used: for either that impotence of reason is judged, also by prudent judgment, to be going to be perpetual, and they are to be baptized, as was said above to the first doubt; or some hope underlies that thereafter the faculty of reason may more manifest itself in them, and then again a distinction must be made: for either they are situated in proximate danger of death, and they are to be baptized, provided that this is done without scandal; or no danger of this kind is present, and more certain indications of reason are to be awaited, so that they may be led to the faith and to Baptism in the manner of adults.

3. But if only doubtful signs are at hand, there will be place for the prudent rule which approved Doctors supply, namely: if necessity does not press, a more suitable and greater knowledge can and must be awaited; but if necessity presses, then in a doubtful case one must incline in favor of religion and of the Christian faith, and of the spiritual salvation of the one to be baptized.

Moreover those who neglect men of this kind as if already damned and desperate strive to cover shameful negligence with a more shameful excuse. To God alone is known the number of the elect to be placed in supreme felicity, and it is of wholly insane rashness to arrogate that judgment to oneself: For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor? Rom. 11. Let religious men rather think this, that God does not will anyone to perish, but all to come to the knowledge of truth, and that they themselves have been called into part of that office which was entrusted by Christ to his disciples, that they go and bring forth fruit, that they perform an embassy for Christ, and that in procuring the salvation of men they serve and collaborate with Christ.

Nowhere therefore is it permitted to neglect those insane persons, but with eyes and minds always intent it must be looked to that, if indeed they are situated in proximate danger of death, the minister baptize them with prudent caution employed; but if not, that he await opportune moments, so that, when they have given forth sufficient indications of reason, he may duly prepare the same in the manner of adults for receiving Baptism.

III. Whether the ministers themselves, before they bring themselves to furnish or deny Baptism to the insane of this second kind, are bound, where it can be done without grave inconvenience, to refer the whole matter to Bishops, Vicars, or Prefects of missions, and to seek from them counsel and a norm of acting?

Resp. Everyone is bound, in performing his office, to guard against the danger of error so far as he can, and to apply to this all the diligence which the gravity of the matter demands. Moreover nothing is so consonant with ecclesiastical discipline and with the hierarchical order instituted by Christ in the Church as that inferiors be directed by superiors in undertaking sacred offices. Therefore where a case occurs in which a Priest assigned to missions hangs uncertain in mind whether, with the circumstances considered, it is lawful or not to minister Baptism, he is not to be considered as guarding sufficiently against the danger of error if, where it can conveniently be done, he neglects to approach his elders and spurns the assistance prepared for him in their judgment, counsel, and authority.

IV. Where Bishops, Vicars, or Prefects are not present, whether one who gives work to missions ought by his own counsel to bring himself to baptize the aforesaid insane persons, after a diligent examination has first been applied and the aid of the Holy Spirit has been implored?

Resp. Religious ministers are indeed bound in that case both to apply diligent examination and earnestly to implore divine aid. But let them remember that their zeal ought chiefly to turn on this: not that they fashion new rules for themselves, but that they not err in applying the rules of the Church. But what those rules are, as pertains to the proposed doubts, can be understood partly from what has already been said, and will become known partly from what must be said.

V. Whether a minister would act lawfully who, after diligent examination, with instruction omitted, secretly baptized those ambiguous insane persons, with this or a similar condition employed: If you are incapable of the hearing of faith, or enveloped in the darkness of irremediable and invincible ignorance; or even more simply: If you are incapable of instruction and of the doctrine necessary for adults before the reception of Baptism, I baptize you, etc.?

Resp. Nothing more apt can be adduced for closing off this doubt than that distinguished sentence of St. Thomas, 2.2, q. 10, art. 12: The custom of the Church has the greatest authority, which is always to be emulated in all things. By the authority of this custom especially the Holy Doctor was induced to deny that it is lawful to baptize the children of infidels when their parents are unwilling, as is had in Const. Postremo mense, n. 6; wherefore it is by no means marvelous that that doctrine of St. Thomas has both been commonly received by others, and has been strengthened and confirmed by the sentences and judgments of other ecclesiastical tribunals as well as also of the supreme Inquisition, as Benedict XIV testifies in the cited Constitution Postremo mense, n. 5, and Constitution Probe, n. 10. Moreover the authority of the same custom applies likewise to excluding that formula of condition which is proposed to be added in ministering Baptism. For almost three causes we find by the custom of the Church that a condition has prevailed in conferring Baptism: when there is prudent doubt concerning Baptism previously conferred, whether it is valid or not; when necessity compels the use of doubtful matter; when it is doubted whether the subject is capable of Baptism, as in monstrous births, or, as in a difficult birth, when it is doubted whether the Sacrament can be effected by washing that part which alone can be washed. In one word: from the custom of the Church a condition is then employed in Baptism when there is place for doubting whether something has been absent or is absent which is required for the validity of the Sacrament. But whenever it is established that no such thing is absent, it has never been heard that it is lawful for the minister, while he executes the rite of Baptism, to add conditions from his own judgment by which the making of the Sacrament is impeded. Therefore what St. Thomas concluded in that first case must also be concluded here: that it is dangerous, contrary to the custom hitherto observed in the Church, to introduce this assertion anew. Wherefore it will be necessary for sacred ministers altogether to abstain from usurping the proposed formula, and to follow that norm which was prescribed for the second doubt.

VI. Whether that is lawful for ministers of the missions which is said to have been proposed by Honoratus Tournely, who, after setting forth the opinion of certain Theologians judging that all infant children of infidels can be baptized when their parents are unaware, adds, as it is reported, that in that case he would have recourse to the Holy See or to nearer prelates for the sake of seeking an oracle; if this assistance were lacking, that he would implore the aid of the Holy Spirit, and would take the counsel of acting from his guidance, and finally that in such a matter each one should be left in his own opinion?

Resp. The opinions of Doctors are to be measured according to the decrees of the Church, not the decrees themselves bent according to the pleasure of those opining.

Therefore, whatever Tournely or other private persons have thought, here a stronger authority is present, placed in the constitutions of the Supreme Pontiffs and in the decrees of the sacred Congregations, which now altogether abrogate all faith in that opinion which seems in some manner to be stirred up by that question, which generally establishes that it is lawful to baptize infant children of infidels when their parents are unwilling or unaware. Indeed Benedict XIV, Const. Postremo mense, n. 7, proposes as fixed and ratified that it is unlawful that infants of the Hebrews be baptized when the judgment of the parents resists, unless however danger of death urges, as he afterwards explains. And lest anyone by calumny should wish that it is one thing to act when parents are unwilling, another when they are unaware, that empty and plainly fictitious distinction is exploded by Constitution Probe, n. 10, where he approves the doctrine of St. Thomas by which he teaches that infants of infidels can by no means be baptized without the consent of the parents. The Pontiff says that doctrine is both commonly received and confirmed by the judgments of ecclesiastical tribunals.

Moreover, for a plainer explanation of this doctrine, it will be worthwhile to append here especially three decrees of the S. Congregation, which indeed were indicated above, but which it was necessary to refer back to this place, so that the series of responses would correspond to the series of doubts. The first, in the year 1705, on 18 Feb., by which, as in Const. Postremo mense, n. 8, responding to the question of the Prelate of happy memory Charles Naigrot, "Whether infant children of infidels can be baptized when their parents are unwilling?" the following response was issued: "The Eminent Fathers, the vote of the Lord Consultors having been heard, said that it is not lawful, except in the article of death." The second, by which, to the request of the Bishop of Quebec concerning infants whom parents freely and spontaneously offer to Baptism, response was made on 4 May 1793: "It is not lawful, if they are children of infidels and to be left in their power, the danger of imminent death nevertheless set aside." To this is consonant another issued on 15 March 1770: "It is not lawful outside danger of death to confer Baptism on those offered by both infidel parents, as often as the same infants after receiving Baptism are to be left under the power and education of the same infidel parents." The third, on 28 January 1657, to the doubt concerning infant children of infidels, constituted in proximate danger of life, response was made: "Baptism can be conferred on infants constituted in the article of death morally certain, if however this is done without scandal." From these decrees those three general precepts are drawn out which had to be touched upon at the beginning, so that reason and way might be prepared for unraveling the doubts themselves, namely: 1. It is not lawful, except in the article or morally certain danger of imminent death, to baptize infant children of infidels when their parents are unwilling or unaware. 2. Nor is it lawful outside the same danger (since in the decrees article and danger are taken promiscuously) to baptize infants even freely offered by infidel parents, if after Baptism they are to be left in the power of their infidel parents. Nor, for breaking or evading the force of this prescription, ought the distinction which is customarily objected between material and formal perversion to have force. That great Pontiff Benedict did not ignore this distinction; nevertheless, it not having been attended to, he pronounces generally in Const. Postremo mense, n. 26, that grave danger of perversion in this matter is a thing of the greatest moment. And the same is established from the decrees brought forward, that it is altogether to be guarded against. 3. In the very article of death also, infant children of infidels are indeed to be baptized, yet in such a way that scandal is avoided, and consequently no greater hatred of infidels against the Christian religion and cruelty against Christians is stirred up. Therefore in every event let sacred ministers indeed implore divine aid, lest forgetfulness of those decrees ever seize them, or they think it lawful for themselves to prefer their private judgment to the same.

VII and VIII. Whether it is lawful to use that opinion explained above at least when, a plague raging, out of a hundred children, as for the most part happens, ninety perish; or when diseases of the people of the worst character consume by far the greatest part of children before they attain the use of reason?

Resp. The sentence of St. Thomas must be repeated here concerning the greatest part of authority which is inherent in the custom of the Church, which is always to be emulated in all things, and against which it is dangerous to introduce new things. In the first centuries of the Church, while Christians were living mixed with infidels, devastations and pestilences were not lacking; nor on that account was it ever placed in custom that the Most Holy Pastors of the Church should baptize the children of infidels with whom they were living, when the parents were unwilling or unaware. Even now in the kindly City Hebrews live among Christians and are permitted to live by their own customs; nor nevertheless have the Supreme Pontiffs ever conceded that, whether openly or secretly, infants, children of Hebrews, be baptized when their parents are unwilling or unaware, for the reason that when a popular plague rages many more of those infants die. From this it is easily understood that a twofold account of danger, as pertains to the present institution, must be distinguished, namely: that common and wandering danger which threatens even healthy men in those places which are afflicted by a popular disease; the other proper and certain danger in which are those whom the infection of the disease infects, or who in whatever way are brought into present danger of life. Moreover the constitutions of the Pontiffs and the decrees of the Congregations, while they forbid the children of infidels to be baptized when parents are unwilling except in danger of death, speak of this present danger, which determinately touches the man to be baptized, and which sometimes is expressed by the name of the article of death as by a synonymous word; but they do not speak of that common and wandering danger, into which neither the word nor the notion of the article of death in any way fits.

Next it must be observed that, although most infants are consumed by force of the disease, nevertheless some always survive, either those whom the disease spares, or those who overcome the disease. But if all infants are baptized indiscriminately, it is consequent that these remain under the care of infidels, to be imbued with their depraved superstitions. And this very thing is what both the constitutions of the Pontiffs and the decrees of the sacred Congregations forbid to be done.

Nevertheless in that devastation which deadly diseases sometimes bring, especially to barbarous regions, there will plainly be something in which religious men may spend laudable work, and bring back an immense fruit of their labors. They will profit much by baptizing those who, constituted morally certainly in the article of death according to the cited decrees, are always to be baptized cautiously and prudently. In this matter they must studiously provide that no one perish by their carelessness and negligence. Next, in those most calamitous times it will sometimes be able to happen that, the parents having died and the inhabitants having been scattered, very many children lie cast away and deserted, destitute of all human aid. In seeking out those miserable infants religious men assigned to missions will give a present and excellent signification of their charity, not that they cast them away again after baptizing them hastily, but that they gather them, and aid and care for them with paternal and pastoral help, so that, whether by their own work, so far as their faculties allow, or by the work of outsiders to whom they will be able duly to commend them, those children, separated from the company of infidels, may be instructed for the duties of Christian life, and at the same time for some honest kind of labor or craft.

IX. Whether with greater right infants, children of heretics or schismatics, who are accustomed to be baptized with their doubtful matter or form, can be baptized again under condition, while namely they are not yet suited to grasp the speculative errors of their parents?

Resp. An involved question and one to be unraveled individually through its parts. For it is asked: 1. concerning Baptism to be ministered to infant children of heretics or schismatics; 2. concerning the cause of repeating Baptism under condition; 3. concerning the use or faculty of reason in the child to be baptized.

As regards 1. It is indeed certain that in the possession of the Church there is a right of baptizing infant children of heretics or schismatics, and of preventing them from being imbued with the errors of their parents; nor can any doubt be raised concerning this right of the Church. Therefore the hinge of the difficulty turns on this: what is to be done when the Church cannot execute that right of hers, nor remove the danger which threatens those infants while they remain under the care and power of heretical or schismatical parents. Here not undeservedly sacred ministers will be able to use the opinion of outstanding Theologians, who judge: "The same thing seems to have to be said in that case concerning a heretic and concerning any other infidel, if the same moral danger exists." From this they conclude that, for a Catholic minister lawfully to furnish Baptism, "it is necessary that he conceive a probable hope that a child of this kind, once baptized, can in his own time be instructed in the true faith. But if in no way he can have a moral hope of this kind, he ought certainly rather to abstain from Baptism, supposing that the little one is not in extreme necessity, in which anyone else can be baptized."

As regards 2. Wherever to the other wickednesses of heretics this also is added, that they apply doubtful matter or form to Baptism, this is indeed enough of a cause why Baptism ought to be repeated under condition. But in this matter not any rumors whatever are plainly to be trusted; but the rite by which the child was baptized is to be diligently and solicitously investigated so far as can be done, and then, if the validity of the prior Baptism remains doubtful, he must be baptized again under condition, if indeed a case occurs in which from the preceding doctrine Baptism is to be ministered.

As regards 3. Some ambiguity lies hidden in that final clause, while the children of heretics or schismatics are not yet suited to grasp the speculative errors of their parents. Here a more advanced age is rather obscurely signified, in which an adolescent, although he has already attained the use of reason, has not yet progressed so far that he can discern the subtle errors of the parents. Concerning such a child or adolescent the question seems to be asked whether a Catholic minister can lawfully baptize him, either absolutely or under condition, with no word having been had concerning those speculative errors, under this pretext, that he is not yet able sufficiently to grasp them. In one word, it is asked whether a child, already possessing the use of reason, educated in heresy or schism and adhering to it, can lawfully be baptized before he is warned concerning the errors of that Sect with which he has already been imbued, and is led to detest and abjure that Sect. The response is to be sought from those things which are prescribed in the Ritual and Roman Catechism concerning the preparation for Baptism to be ministered to adults, and are everywhere explained by Catholic Doctors. An adult to be baptized asks faith from the Church; therefore he must be taught the principal heads of the Christian faith, and must profess that faith which the Holy Catholic Roman Church holds and professes, and promise due obedience to that Church and to its Supreme Head, the Roman Pontiff. Therefore although the child concerning whom the question is asked is not yet able to inspect and penetrate the speculative errors of his parents by his own, as it were, understanding, nevertheless it is not lawful for him to be ignorant that that Sect professes depraved errors condemned by the Church, and he must altogether abjure and detest both that Sect and its errors, and profess himself a Roman Catholic. Religious men who devote work to missions ought to judge this office given to themselves: that they lead to the sheepfold of Christ the sheep who have perished. But who would judge those to pertain to the sheepfold of Christ who adhere to Sects which pursue the sheepfold of Christ and bear a hostile mind like wolves against the Church? The Church is enlarged by the aggregation of those who acknowledge, hear, and honor her as Mother and Mistress; nor does she acknowledge as her own those who impiously refuse to acknowledge and venerate the power given to her by Christ according to the faith and prescription of the Church herself.

X. Whether those assigned to missions are bound under grave obligation to apply work and zeal, that they may become suitable and equal to executing the offices concerning which thus far it has been said, lest they allow so many souls to perish, which are damned by their carelessness and impatience of labor.

Resp. There is no place for ambiguity here. It is certain among all that each one is bound to put whatever moral diligence he can into this, that he may be rendered apt and suitable for undertaking his own offices. This obligation is the graver, the more grave in moment the offices themselves are which each one performs. From this it is clear with how grave a fault that minister would bind himself by whose carelessness and negligence, may God avert it, it happened that even the least of the little ones perished, for whom Christ poured out his Blood. Wherefore sacred ministers ought especially to confer their zeal on this: that they procure those helps of doctrine which are necessary for themselves to perform their offices duly. They will have to seek these from approved authors, and especially from those who have treated of matters pertaining to missions, whom, as being sufficiently known, there is no need to enumerate by name in this place. Above all, however, let them never cease to look to the decrees and rescripts of the Apostolic See, approved by inviolable authority, which Christ willed to be for his faithful, as of every saving truth, so of every truly pious thing, the most certain guide and mistress." Hyacinthus Gerdil, Bishop of Dibona, Instr. S. C. de P. F. 17 Apr. 1777.

"The S. C. skillfully observed that the doubt concerning the administration of Baptism to little ones recently born from heretical progenitors rests on a false principle, namely, that it is not lawful to baptize them at home only outside danger of death, but that it is indeed lawful in church, if they are brought to it for the reception of Baptism. But since from this false persuasion there threatens a danger of gravely sinning, not only against Ecclesiastical law but also against Divine law, by which the subject to whom it is not lawful to administer Baptism is prescribed; therefore it ordered the present Instruction to be drawn up, to be transmitted to the aforesaid Reverend Father Lord Vicar Apostolic, insofar as, with the same communicated to the Missionaries living there, each one may learn the true cause on account of which it has several times been defined by the Apostolic See that it is not lawful to administer the sacrament of Baptism to children born of heretical parents outside danger of death, and in the future they may beware of soliciting heretical parents to bring their children to the church to be initiated by Baptism.

The Church indeed forbids, in the single Clementine, On Baptism, that, except in the article of necessity, on account of which access to the church cannot be had without danger because of this, infants be baptized at home, unless they are children of great Princes; but by this law, by which the place for administering Baptism is indicated, nothing is established concerning children born of heretical parents, whom it is established from another source cannot be baptized by Catholics either at home or in church, if they are well; namely, since by divine and natural precept it is forbidden to give holy things to dogs and to cast pearls before swine, and among the mysteries of the Catholic Religion the Sacraments are especially holy and useful, through which the merits of the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated, and every true justice in us either begins, or once begun is increased, or once lost is repaired, it is not lawful to give those things to dogs, that is, to the profane, who, as soon as through age they will be able, are going to despise them and corrupt them by their own fault. But no one does not see that children begotten from heretical parents, who are to be permitted to the care and education of their progenitors, as soon as they arrive at the age of discretion, in which they can be masters of their own acts, will be imbued with paternal errors, and are going to sacrilegiously abjure the Catholic faith which through sponsors in Baptism they ought to profess, to the greater condemnation of themselves and the graver contempt of the Catholic Church in which they have been regenerated. For this reason, therefore, it is not lawful to baptize them in infantile age outside danger of death, and Catholic Ministers sin against the office of a faithful dispenser who admit the same to receiving Baptism.

“Canon 1. If anyone shall say that the Baptism of John had the same force as the Baptism of Christ: let him be anathema.

“Canon 2. If anyone shall say that true and natural water is not necessary for Baptism, and therefore shall distort into some metaphor those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ, ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’: let him be anathema.

“Canon 3. If anyone shall say that in the Roman Church, which is the mother and teacher of all Churches, there is not true doctrine concerning the Sacrament of Baptism: let him be anathema.

“Canon 4. If anyone shall say that Baptism which is given even by heretics in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, with the intention of doing what the Church does, is not true Baptism: let him be anathema.

“Canon 5. If anyone shall say that Baptism is free, that is, not necessary for salvation: let him be anathema.

“Canon 6. If anyone shall say that one baptized cannot, even if he wills, lose grace, however much he may sin, unless he is unwilling to believe: let him be anathema.

“Canon 7. If anyone shall say that through Baptism itself those baptized are made debtors only of faith alone, but not of observing the whole law of Christ: let him be anathema.

“Canon 8. If anyone shall say that those baptized are free from all the precepts of Holy Church, whether written or handed down, in such a way that they are not bound to observe them unless they shall have willed to submit themselves to them of their own accord: let him be anathema.

“Canon 9. If anyone shall say that men are to be recalled to the memory of the Baptism received in such a way that they understand all vows which are made after Baptism to be invalid by force of the promise already made in Baptism itself, as though through them both the faith which they professed and Baptism itself were disparaged: let him be anathema.

“Canon 10. If anyone shall say that all sins which are committed after Baptism are either remitted or made venial by the recollection and faith alone of the Baptism received: let him be anathema.

“Canon 11. If anyone shall say that true and rightly conferred Baptism must be repeated for him who denied the faith of Christ among unbelievers when he is converted to Penance: let him be anathema.

“Canon 12. If anyone shall say that no one is to be baptized except at that age at which Christ was baptized or at the very point of death: let him be anathema.

“Canon 13. If anyone shall say that infants, because they do not have an act of believing, are not to be numbered among the faithful after receiving Baptism, and therefore are to be rebaptized when they shall have reached the years of discretion; or that it is better that their Baptism be omitted than that, not believing by their own act, they be baptized in the faith of the Church alone: let him be anathema.

“Canon 14. If anyone shall say that infants baptized in this manner, when they have grown up, are to be asked whether they wish to ratify what their sponsors promised in their name while they were baptized; and that, when they respond that they are unwilling, they are to be left to their own judgment and meanwhile are not to be compelled to the Christian life by any other penalty except that they be restrained from receiving the Eucharist and the other Sacraments until they repent: let him be anathema.”

Cf. Instruction on Baptism of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 23 June 1830; C. 484, 648.

“To your inquiry We respond thus: the priest whom you signified to have ended his last day without the water of Baptism, because he persevered in the faith of Holy Mother Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, We unhesitatingly assert to have been freed from original sin and to have attained the joy of the heavenly fatherland.” Innocent III, chapter Apostolicam, 2, De Presbytero non baptizato.

“…We therefore approve the Baptism of infants; if they shall have died after Baptism before committing sins, we confess and believe that they are saved. We believe that in Baptism all sins are remitted, both that original sin contracted and those which have been voluntarily committed.” Profession of faith prescribed by Innocent III to the Waldensians returning to the Church, Epistle, 4 Ides of May 1210.

“The souls of those who, after receiving Sacred Baptism, have incurred no stain of sin at all…are immediately received into Heaven.” Confession of faith of Michael Palaeologus.—The same is contained in the same words in the Decree of Union of the Council of Florence, in the Bull Laetentur caeli of Eugene IV, and in the Profession of Faith for Orientals prescribed by Urban VIII and Benedict XIV.

“43. The first effect of baptismal grace is to cause us to die to sin, to such an extent that the spirit, heart, and senses have no more life for sin than a dead man has for the things of the world.” Proposition of Pasquier Quesnel condemned by Clement XI.

That the Greeks ought not to baptize those baptized by the Latins was established by Innocent III around the year 1216, chapter Licet Graecos, last, De Baptismo et eius effectu.

The Holy Roman Church “says and preaches that those who fall into sins after Baptism are not to be rebaptized, but obtain pardon of their sins through true Penance.” Confession of faith of Michael Palaeologus proposed to him by Clement IV in the year 1267 and offered by him to Gregory X at the Second Ecumenical Council of Lyons in the year 1274.

“Baptism, Confirmation, and Order cannot be repeated without sacrilege.” Tridentine Profession of Faith. The same is contained in the same words in the Profession of Faith for Orientals prescribed by Urban VIII and Benedict XIV.

“You asked whether those infants are to be regarded as Christians who, being at the point of death, because of a lack of water and the absence of a priest, were smeared by the simplicity of certain persons upon the head, breast, and between the shoulders by sprinkling saliva as Baptism. We respond that, since in Baptism two things are always necessarily required, namely, the word and the element, according as the Truth says concerning the word, ‘Going into the world,’ etc., and says likewise concerning the element, ‘Unless a man,’ etc., you ought not to doubt that those do not have true Baptism in whom not only both of the aforesaid things but even one of them is omitted.” Innocent III, year 1250, chapter Non ut, 5, De Baptismo et eius effectu.

“The Sacrament of Baptism, which is consecrated in water at the invocation of God and the undivided Trinity, namely, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, when rightly conferred upon both infants and adults by anyone in the form of the Church, avails unto salvation.” Fourth Lateran Council, year 1215, chapter 1, Definition against the Albigensians and other heretics.

“1. Is one validly baptized with water which, although it wholly retains its liquidity, nevertheless exhales a great and very unpleasant stench?—2. Given the validity of Baptism with such water, and when other good water enriched with sacred chrism is not available, is it better to use this putrid water than pure and natural water not enriched with chrism?

“Response. Baptisms conferred with corrupted water were valid, although illicit outside a case of necessity; and in a case of necessity natural water is to be preferred, but provision must be made for the renewal of the water of the baptismal font according to the Roman Ritual.” Holy Office, 17 April 1839.

“Many physicians in hospitals or elsewhere, in a case of necessity, are accustomed to baptize infants, especially in the womb of the mother, with water mixed with corrosive bichloride of mercury (in French, chloride de mercure). This water is generally composed by a solution of one part of this mercuric chloride in one thousand parts of water, and a draught of this aqueous solution is poisonous. The reason why they use this mixture is lest the mother’s womb be affected by disease.

“1. Is Baptism administered with water of this kind certainly or doubtfully valid?—2. Is it lawful, in order to avoid every danger of disease, to administer the Sacrament of Baptism with water of this kind?—3. Is it lawful to use this water even when pure water can be employed without any danger of disease?

“Response. To the first: Provision will be made in the second.—To the second: It is lawful where a true danger of disease is present.—To the third: Negative.” Holy Office, 21 August 1901.

“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.

“In a case of necessity, can Baptism be administered to dying infants by signing their forehead or another principal part with a sponge imbued with water, without the water flowing over it, from fear that the parents may perceive the matter, since they have opposed it and watch the Missionaries at close quarters?

“Response. In a case of true and extreme necessity, when the death of the child is imminent and the Missionaries can have no other occasion to visit him, and the parents oppose Baptism, the Missionaries can, indeed must, employ the proximate and remote matter, however doubtful, since assistance, even uncertain, for the spiritual regeneration of the child must prevail over the danger of the invalidity of the Sacrament. Therefore the manner of administering Baptism described can and must be employed in the case of the aforesaid necessity, and not otherwise; and the Missionaries are admonished to cause some part of the water to run over the head, if possible, and insofar as it cannot flow over the head, let it flow at least over some principal member of the child’s body. But those who shall have been doubtfully baptized in this manner, if they recover, are to be baptized again conditionally.” Holy Office, 8 November 1770; C. 502.

“If anyone shall immerse a child in water three times in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, Amen, and shall not say: ‘I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, Amen,’ the child is not baptized.” Alexander III, chapter Si quis, 1, De Baptismo et eius effectu.

“27. At one time Baptism conferred under this form was valid: ‘In the name of the Father,’ etc., with these words omitted: ‘I baptize you.’” Proposition condemned by Alexander VIII.

“We are baptized only in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and not in the names of Archangels or Angels, as heretics, or Jews, or even demented Gentiles do.” Anathemas of Pope Damasus, no. 24.

“Can the Baptism which is administered by Chaldean priests to males with the word eemdat, placed in their Ritual, which has the signification of the present imperative, namely, ‘Let such a one be baptized,’ and the signification of the past, namely, ‘Such a one has been baptized,’ be sustained, presupposing in the one baptizing an understanding of the said word in the past tense?

“Response. 1. Baptism conferred through a verb of the past tense to signify a past action, and not also the action which is exercised by the minister at the time when he baptizes with the invocation of the Most Holy Trinity and the ablution, immersion, or sprinkling of natural water, is not true Baptism.

“2. Nevertheless, Baptism conferred through a verb indifferent to the past indicative and the present imperative would be true if the one baptizing used it for the present imperative, provided that the other things are right, namely, the intention, immersion in water, ablution, or sprinkling, with the express invocation of the Most Holy Trinity.

“3. The same is to be said when the minister, using a verb indifferent as above, thinking nothing about the past or the present, would nevertheless have the virtual intention of using that word in the best manner in which he can, even if he believed the word signifying or expressing the act which is exercised by the minister to be of the past tense, provided that he retained the intention of doing what Christ instituted or the Church observes and the Christian people observe, and of not binding the signification of the form to his private belief.

1. “Sempronius, in wintertime, is accustomed to baptize infants with water somewhat warmed, or tepid.” — Is this licit?

R. “Sempronius did not sin from the fact that in wintertime he baptized in water somewhat warmed. Thus Illsung, Babenstuber, and many others. The reason is that the sacrament ought not to harm the life of man, which was instituted for the restoration of life lost by the sin of Adam.” Elbel, 15.

2. Dominic, in a case of necessity, baptizes a boy with a drink of tea. — Is the boy to be baptized again, if this can be done?

R. In the affirmative. For the matter is doubtful. Although that drink is made with a great quantity of water and a small quantity of the herb tea, nevertheless according to the moral estimation of men, a drink of this kind is not held to be, nor is it, natural water. Nevertheless, because only an accidental change of the water is had, the matter seems at least doubtfully sufficient, and therefore it is to be used in a case of necessity. — I. M. 397, 398.

3. A doubt was proposed by the Missionaries: “Whether in those kingdoms in which parents oppose the baptism of their children because of the opinion, in which idolaters sometimes are, that baptism makes them die, they can be baptized in danger of death by using water in which there have been placed some quintessences or strong odors, or else some drugs, such as saffron, or powder of some other kind, to induce a change in the natural color without altering its substance, and by making use of it as if it were a remedy, either in the manner of a shower by pouring the water over a part or over the head, or in the manner of a bath, or to wash or clean the child, or to refresh his eyes, or cleanse his wounds, or even by giving it to him to drink, or in some other manner by way of remedy, as if this actually were so; but above all principally to baptize him, pronouncing in a low voice the form of the sacrament.”

The Holy Office, 8 November 1770, responded: “In the case of extreme and true necessity, in which the death of the child is imminent, and no other and more convenient occasion of visiting him can be given to the missionaries, and the parents are hostile to baptism ... in such a case the missionaries can, indeed must, use proximate and remote matter, although doubtful, since the help, although uncertain, toward the spiritual generation of the child must prevail over the danger of the invalidity of the sacrament. Hence, excepting the manner of giving baptism by way of drink ... which is certainly illicit, and baptism so conferred would be invalid; and excepting also the use of aromatic waters or essences, in which the substance of the water would be altered, all the other manners expressed ... can and must be employed in the case of the alleged extreme necessity, and not otherwise ... warning that in these cases they always take care that some portion of water flow over the head if possible, and, if in no way it can flow over the head, that it flow at least over some principal part of the body of the child. Furthermore, they make certain that in the case in which these children, thus baptized with doubt about the validity of the sacrament, should recover health, the missionaries seek every better way to baptize them again sub conditione and to instruct them.”

4. Anna, a midwife, is often in the necessity of baptizing newly born infants who are in danger of life. But because she fears lest she use a doubtful or less certain form of baptism, for greater security she takes care to utter it now in one way, now in another, and, as she thinks, in a better way, according as in various cases the fear of erring first suggests to her that it must be done. Hence, 1. sometimes she says: I baptize thee in the name of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of God the Holy Spirit. 2. Sometimes she says: I baptize thee in the name of the almighty Father, and of the only-begotten Son, and of the Holy Spirit the Paraclete. 3. Sometimes she says: I baptize thee in the name of our Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. 4. Sometimes she says: I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Word, and of the Holy Spirit. 5. Sometimes she says: I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Spirit.

Question. What is to be said about the validity of the various forms which Anna used?

R. Concerning the first form, Father Gury, 191, says: “The form is doubtful, because the unity of the divine essence does not seem to be sufficiently expressed. Yet more probably it is valid, because the sense of the form is not essentially changed. But because of the controversy, the baptism is to be repeated.” Elbel, 34, speaking of this same form, says: “It seems sufficiently certain that baptism conferred in this manner is valid, since both the Trinity of Persons is sufficiently expressed, and the unity of the divine essence by the little word in the name. Hence Gobat, tract 2, no. 721, says: I would not order one who had been washed thus to be dipped again, because neither authority nor reason permits calling it into doubt. Nevertheless all confess that this manner of baptizing is gravely illicit, since it is against the practice and prescription of the Church.” Certainly St. Alphonsus in no. 108, cited by Father Gury, has nothing about this form. But in no. 111 he says absolutely: “Baptism is valid if words are added to the form which do not corrupt the sense; for example ... if someone were to say: I baptize thee in the name of God the Father, who created thee, etc.” Now it is evident and certain that that addition God does not corrupt the form, and that it is understood in the expression of each Person. But the mystery of the unity of the divine nature, signified by the word in the name, remains altogether intact. Nor indeed from that repetition of the name of God does there follow a plurality of Gods, “because one and the same name can be named and invoked again and again without plurality; as it is truly said, the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet they cannot be called Gods.” Suarez, d. 21, s. 3, par. Sed quid; La Croix, book 6, part 1, no. 34.

The second form, as the same St. Alphonsus has in the cited place, is valid. For nothing is added in it whence a substantial alteration is had. And St. Thomas, part 3, question 60, article 8, explicitly says: “If someone says: I baptize thee in the name of God the almighty Father, and of his only-begotten Son, and of the Holy Spirit the Paraclete, it will be true baptism.” Cf. Lugo, d. 2, nos. 117, 125.

The third form seems doubtful. For the word our seems to take away the true sense of the form. For the word Father in the form of baptism is determined to signify only the Person of the Father, who is Father with respect to his only-begotten Son. But the added word our now determines another sense, namely it causes God the Creator to be signified without distinction of Persons. This also seems to be drawn from the Response of the Holy Office, 27 January 1892. Cf. Collectan. S. C. de P. F., no. 2160.

The fourth form seems valid. For the changing of the word Son into the word Word does not take away the true sense of the form. D’Annibale, no. 272, note 26, has it as valid, and Suarez, d. 21, s. 4, par. Secunda sententia, also has it as valid.

Finally, the fifth form is also valid. For the omission of that word Holy does not take away the sense of the form. For the word Spirit, which is imposed to signify the property of the third Person, namely passive spiration, which it signifies formally, sufficiently signifies the third Person. And thus also in Sacred Scripture the third Person is simply called Spirit, John 7:39. Suarez, d. 21, s. 4, par. In hac re; D’Annibale, no. 272, note 26; Liguori, 109, at the end.

5. Metrodorus, a parish priest, wishing to impose the name of a girl in the baptism itself and to dedicate her to the Blessed Virgin Mary, baptized her thus: I baptize thee, Mary, in the name, etc. — Licitly and validly?

R. Illicitly, because it is against the Ritual; validly, because the form is in no way substantially changed. The same is to be said if, from the same intention, the name is added in the vocative case after the word Father, if namely it is said: I baptize thee in the name of the Father, Mary, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. For the form even in this Case is not substantially changed, neither from the nature of the thing, as is clear, nor from the intention of the agent. Indeed Cardinal De Lugo, d. 2, no. 107, says: “The form of baptism will be valid if, in place of those words, I baptize thee, it is said, I baptize Peter, although that word, Peter, is of itself equivocal for signifying this or that Peter.”

6. Daniel, a secular man, baptizing a boy in necessity, although he used the customary form of baptism, nevertheless did not intend to baptize in the name of the divine Father, in the name of the divine Son, in the name of the divine Holy Spirit; but in the name of the father of that same boy, in the name of the firstborn son of the aforesaid father, in the name of the created spirit, namely the soul itself of the boy to be baptized.

Question. Did Daniel validly baptize?

R. “The baptism is null. The reason ... because for the valid confecting of the sacrament there is necessary a legitimate intention of the minister, namely of doing the sacrament, or at least of doing what the Church does, or what Christ instituted ... And although he used the legitimate form of baptism, nevertheless, because he did not use those words in the legitimate sense, but in a foreign sense, hence he effected nothing, just as a priest would effect nothing ... if, uttering these words, This is my body, he understood not the Body of Christ, but his own, proper to himself.” Elbel, 35.

Appositely Lugo, d. 2, nos. 113–118, speaking of the form of baptism, says: “If the minister sins in the due intention of signifying, not wishing to signify the wise Father, but a Father who is not wise, then he would do nothing, not from defect of the words, but from defect of intention, just as if one consecrating did not have the intention of signifying the true presence of the Body of Christ by that word is, but only an improper presence and according to figure, he would not consecrate.” When, however, on the part of intention there is present the intention of doing what Christ commanded, and there is at the same time an error in the mind, an error of this kind in no way stands in the way of the validity of the sacrament. For the error remains only in the mind; neither do the words signify it according to themselves, nor do they signify it from the intention of the one uttering them. For by the very fact that someone has a sincere intention of doing what the Church does, he now wills by those words to signify that which Christ and the Church wish to signify. Wherefore it is required for the validity of the form “both that it signify that which Christ willed, as far as concerns the words, that is, that they be of themselves apt for signifying, and that they also signify that same thing on the part of the one uttering, who intends to signify this very thing; for without this there is no speech. For a parrot also utters words which of themselves signify something, and yet it does not speak, because it does not intend to signify that thing by the words. Similarly, therefore, in that case that form would not be a speech signifying, in the notion of speech, that which Christ willed, since the minister does not utter the words to signify that, but something else.”

1. Symphorosa, the mother of a family, noticing that her newly born offspring is unexpectedly in great danger of life, breaks out into cries and wailings. Sigismund, her husband, runs up; the sons and servants arrive at the same time: "Quickly bring water," Sigismund cries, "that I may baptize the infant." But Marcus, Sigismund's son, says: "This office is mine, for I am a cleric, marked with all the minor orders, and a candidate of sacred theology." But the mother says: "Call the parish priest; since he is nearby, he will be here at once." Meanwhile Melania, the maidservant, pouring water upon the infant's head, pronounces the words of the form of baptism; and a little afterward the infant, now baptized, flies away to the citizens of heaven.

Quaer. What is to be said of the Case?

R. The parish priest ought to have been called, if he really could have been present at once, and baptism could have been deferred for a little while. But, as appears from the Case, the necessity was altogether urgent, and allowed no delay. In the absence of the parish priest, Marcus the cleric ought to have baptized. But that Melania baptized in the presence of Marcus, an inferior cleric, was not grave. That a layperson, generally speaking, baptizes in the presence of an inferior cleric, "Pal. says is no sin, since concerning this no divine or ecclesiastical precept is found. But others commonly and rightly teach that it is not mortal, because such a perversion of order does not seem so grave, since by force of order no one besides the priest and the deacon by commission is held to be specially deputed to baptize. On the other hand, it does not seem to be excused from venial fault, both because this seems to be some indecency, and because it is contrary to the prescription of the Roman Ritual." Lig. 117. But Melania seems to be excused even from venial fault in the Case, since in that confusion and contention of affairs, with the infant's danger imminent, she did well by at once resolving the question, by baptizing the infant so that his eternal salvation might be placed in safety. I. M. 425. 429., G. 199.

2. Daniel, a deacon, while the parish priest is absent for several days, from his presumed consent, solemnly baptizes a boy in the parish church. But the parish priest on returning accuses him of grave fault, because, the case of necessity being excluded, a deacon needs explicit delegation in order to baptize solemnly. Therefore he ought either to have awaited the parish priest or to have summoned another priest.

Quaer. What is to be said of the Case?

R. "Daniel the deacon sinned gravely by baptizing solemnly without delegation, or without necessity, because he usurped an act of parochial jurisdiction. Indeed, a deacon cannot be delegated by the parish priest to baptize solemnly except for some grave cause, because in the present discipline of the Church he is only an extraordinary minister. Daniel, moreover, by baptizing solemnly without delegation, incurred the penalty of irregularity because of the usurpation of an act of order for which he was not ordained. C. 1. de Cler. non ord. min." Thus Fr. Gury 200.

But in this resolution something seems to be less exact: namely, that a deacon is the extraordinary minister of baptism only by the discipline of the Church. Something also seems to be too severe: namely, that, while the parish priest was absent for several days, Daniel could not baptize, and needed the express delegation of the parish priest. For a deacon, by force of the order itself, is the extraordinary minister of baptism, and when grave necessity exists he can baptize even from a presumed commission. Nor, indeed, was grave necessity lacking in the Case, if in fact there was no other priest in the parish.

Indeed, in conferring the sacraments, the minister regularly needs the power of order and of jurisdiction. But by reason of order, there is a threefold grade of ministers. In the first are placed the bishops, who, as it were the princes of the Church, confer all the sacraments, but especially those with which some office is joined, namely confirmation and order. In the second are the presbyters, who, with these two excepted, confect the remaining sacraments. But there can be extraordinary ministers both of confirmation and of orders, which do not approach the Eucharist so closely. In the third are the deacons, "who administer baptism and the Eucharist only; and not always, but, since they are extraordinary ministers and supply the place of presbyters only in grave necessity, and by the command of the presbyters at least interpretative; but in extreme necessity it is lawful for them to minister these even against the will of the presbyters, from the interpretative command of the bishop or of the Church." D'Annib. 252. And St. Alph. 116 says: "The commission cannot be made to a deacon except because of great necessity, or the utility of the Church, for example if priests were not present, or unless there is a multitude of persons to be baptized, or unless the parish priest is gravely ill, or excommunicated, or otherwise occupied in hearing confessions or in preaching, as is gathered from Acts 6. 3."

But, that it may be explained more fully in what way a deacon, by force of order and by divine law, and not merely by ecclesiastical law, can be the extraordinary minister of solemn baptism, it is useful to report those things which Suarez has, d. 23. s. 2. par. penult. et ult., where he explains two differences in this matter between a deacon and inferior clerics. "One is absolute in relation to the solemn administration of baptism. For this, from a reasonable cause, can be committed to a deacon in a case of necessity; indeed, if necessity urges and a priest is absent, he can himself, by his own right, take up the ministry, as the Gloss teaches in C. Diaconos 13. dist. 93. But to inferiors it cannot be committed on account of any necessity; rather, when that necessity urges, they can baptize only privately... But this difference seems to have been established rather by ecclesiastical law than by divine law... Yet I do not doubt that, from a dispensation of the Supreme Pontiff, this solemn ministry can be committed to someone who is not a deacon... Yet I do not deny that this ecclesiastical ordinance is very consonant with divine law, and has some foundation in it, inasmuch as, from the intention of divine law, the deacon is ordained to this: that he be the special minister of the presbyter, so that the presbyter may both use his ministry in sacred things to be performed, and may also commit to him some sacerdotal ministry for which the sacerdotal character is not absolutely necessary, when a legitimate cause is present. The most suitable example is in the distribution of the Lord's Body, which can be committed to a deacon, but not to a subdeacon... which indeed is consonant with divine law; nevertheless, absolutely, it has been instituted by ecclesiastical law. The second difference is in the private administration of baptism on account of necessity. For, first, it can more easily be committed to a deacon than to an inferior, because he is already in some way deputed to this by reason of his order; whence even in the presence of a priest there can be some cause sufficient for committing this ministry to a deacon, which is not sufficient for it to be committed to an inferior, as, for example, because of some more serious occupation, a priest could sometimes commit it to a deacon, but not to a subdeacon or inferior. Then... in the absence of superiors the deacon is to be preferred, as if by his own right, to all inferiors, so that an inversion of this order is not only indecent by reason of this sacrament, but is also a certain usurpation of another's right; but the order among the other persons inferior to a deacon is made only from a certain decency, not by reason of a right which any one of them has to minister this sacrament."

3. Olympius, a missionary, doubting concerning the dispositions of Laurianus, a catechumen, and, on account of peculiar circumstances, since he could in no way defer baptism, baptizes him under a condition, the condition namely having been conceived only in his mind: if Laurianus has faith, sincere sorrow, and purpose concerning his sins.

Quaer. Whether Olympius acted rightly?

R. Negatively. A condition, from the custom of the Church, is then only applied in baptism when there is room for doubting whether something was lacking, or is lacking, which is required for the value of the sacrament. Faith and penitence in the adult who is baptized are not required by necessity of the sacrament itself, but only for its fruit. Moreover, from this manner of acting a most grave inconvenience follows in the Case: namely, the nullity and deprivation of baptism, if the condition is not verified, for the whole time of life. Cf. Collectan. S. C. de P. F. n. 589. 648. 655., Catech. Roman. de Sacram. Bapt. n. 57.

4. Titius, the parish priest, while he is about to baptize an infant, is warned by the midwife that the same child, scarcely brought forth into the light, had been baptized by her. The child's father, Caius, who is present, denies this, since all who are of the family are altogether ignorant of a fact of this kind. But the woman adds that she baptized the boy, to whom death already seemed to be imminent, in the very bedroom of the mother, who was asleep after childbirth, where she was alone. Then the father says: I shall never believe this, nor, even if you had baptized, shall I ever be able to bring my mind to believe that you conferred baptism duly. Hence the parish priest questions the midwife about the manner of the sacrament conferred, and he observes that no defect had been present. Nevertheless the father urges more insistently that he wants his son to be baptized by the parish priest, because the midwife was commonly regarded as a rude woman and of doubtful reputation. Titius, knowing well that Caius is a powerful man in the little town, lest he have this man hostile to him, baptizes the little boy under condition, by which means the whole dispute was at once settled.

A little afterward Titius, having been called to confer the sacraments upon a certain sick man, is anxious about his manner of acting, fearing lest perhaps he has contracted irregularity.

Quaer. What is to be said of the Case?

R. Although through baptism conferred conditionally "the danger is avoided of rebaptizing him who has already once been legitimately baptized, nevertheless that is not therefore to be employed everywhere and rashly; but it will be permitted to use it only then when a prudent and probable doubt is present whether someone has been duly baptized, and, after diligent investigation has first been made, the truth of the matter could not become known." Benedict. XIV. de Syn. l. 7. c. 6. n. 2. Now, in truth, there does not seem to remain in the Case a prudent doubt about baptism, after the investigation of the matter has been made. For first, the midwife herself spontaneously affirms that baptism has already been conferred by her, and no reason is discovered which would move her thus to a false affirmation in a matter so grave. When the infant's father cries out against it from ignorance of the baptism conferred by her, the midwife duly explains the fact; and the explanation seemed so true to the father himself, resisting in that moment, that he opposed nothing as to the fact of the baptism conferred, but objected another difficulty concerning baptism duly conferred. But this difficulty also vanishes altogether from the investigation that was made. For the midwife explains the manner of the baptism conferred, and it is clear from this that there had in reality been no defect in the conferring of baptism. But the father of the infant, urging the matter, objects again that the midwife is rude and of doubtful reputation. That the midwife is rude, just as this does not prevent her from knowing well how to exercise her art, so also it does not prevent her from knowing how to baptize duly. For it concerns a very easy thing, a thing in which midwives are altogether accustomed to be skilled, a thing in which in fact the midwife, in the Case, although she were rude and very rude, was well instructed, as appears from the examination that was made. Nor, indeed, can any prudent doubt be present from the fact that she is of doubtful reputation. For first, if this alone sufficed for a prudent doubt, one would already have to doubt concerning all the other baptisms conferred by her; and certainly this was not the first baptism which she had ministered, since it concerns a midwife already exercising her art, and in reality well exercised in it, since she well perceived the danger of death in which the infant was found. Moreover, that doubtful reputation does not bear upon the matter; for what advantage for the midwife, or what utility of hers, would there be from a lie? No one is bad unless he is proved to be so. Indeed, rather, her constant affirmation before the very powerful father, to whom at last even the parish priest yields from fear, is an altogether grave and certain argument, morally speaking, concerning the truth of the affirmed conferral of baptism. Wherefore Titius does not act duly by baptizing the infant under condition, lest he have Caius hostile to him. And this very thing shows that Titius did not act rightly. For, since he himself was the judge and witness of the whole dispute between the midwife and Caius, and since he himself certainly knew the midwife well from another source, he was moved to repeat baptism only from fear of Caius; whence also afterward he feared that he had incurred irregularity. Therefore the baptism conferred, and conferred duly, seemed so certain to him!

"Indeed," says Bened. XIV. l. c. n. 4., "if midwives have been legitimately taught concerning the matter, form, and necessary intention in the minister of the sacrament... and they, in the special event in which they privately conferred baptism upon an infant in danger, being questioned by the same parish priest, testify that all things were duly employed by them which are required for validly confecting the sacrament, surely no probable reason is present why baptism ought, or can licitly, be repeated under condition... Although from the attestation of several persons greater certainty of the thing done is certainly drawn, nevertheless the sacred canons hold the conferral of baptism to have been sufficiently proved by a single witness, especially if he testifies concerning his own deed, that is, if he affirms that it was legitimately administered by himself, and nothing occurs to the contrary which detracts from the credibility of his testimony, as is expressly decreed in Caus. 110. and 112. de Consecrat. dist. 4. and Cap. Nuper de Testibus." Cf. also Enchir. Moral. 466.-468. 896.

But as regards the irregularity which Titius fears that he has incurred, Benedict. XIV. l. c. n. 3. judges that those are not exempt from the irregularity inflicted by Alex. III. C. Ex litterarum de Apostat. et reiterantib. bapt. upon those repeating baptism, "who, on account of only an apprehended defect of the former baptism, and with no investigation of the truth having first been made, confer it again under condition upon those whom they certainly know to have already once before had it conferred." St. Alph. l. 7. n. 356 says: "One rebaptizing, or rebaptized, from fear, without intention, or under condition, even if it be done rashly and culpably, probably do not become irregular." Wherefore Titius will probably be able, from St. Alph., to be excused from irregularity. This irregularity more truly prohibits only the reception of orders; it does not prohibit the exercise of orders received. C. Ex litterarum de Apost. D'Annib. p. 1. n. 410. Cf. Collect. S. C. de P. F. n. 648. par. Quamobrem initio. Others, however, extend it also to the exercise of orders. Bened. XIV. Notif. 84. n. 14. seqq. Wherefore again Titius was able to minister the sacraments to the sick man. - I. M. 465. 1322.

5. "Sabellinus, a heretic, coming to the parish priest, asks to be instructed and admitted to the Catholic Church. But the parish priest, after instructing him, asks him about the baptism he has received, and cannot find a certain defect; hence he remains hesitating and uncertain whether he ought to rebaptize him under condition, which nevertheless he does, though not without great anxiety.

Quaer. What is to be said of the Case?

R. Sabellinus could and ought to be rebaptized, as the general custom of the Church bears; because it is known that heretics err rather often in conferring baptism; therefore heretics converted to the true faith are prudently and commonly accustomed to be rebaptized." Thus Fr. Gury 207.

We must treat: 1. of the nature, properties, and necessity of Baptism; 2. of the matter and form; 3. of the Minister; 4. of the subject and the accessory solemnities.

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.

67. II. On infants in danger in the maternal uterus. Although many older theologians doubted concerning the validity of baptism conferred on infants in the uterus, nevertheless today it is commonly taught that such baptism is valid. (a) Wherefore, if danger of death threatens, the infant in the uterus will have to be baptized under condition: "if you are capable"¹; and if afterward it is born alive, it is to be rebaptized under condition: "if you are not baptized." The reason is that some doubt remains concerning the validity of baptism of this sort, until the Church has rendered judgment on this matter². Besides, before an infant is baptized in the uterus, whether by syringe, or sponge, or hand, care must be taken that the secundines be broken, so that the water touches the very body of the infant.

¹ The Ritual indeed teaches the contrary, n. 16: "No one enclosed in the mother's uterus ought to be baptized"; but this was written when such baptism was falsely thought to be invalid.

² Moreover the Sacred Congregation of the Council responded thus not only July 12, 1794, but also March 16, 1897, apud Eschbach, p. 335-336.

(b) If the infant has emitted the head and danger of death threatens, let it be baptized on the head, nor afterward, if it escapes alive, will it have to be baptized again; because then the baptism is certainly valid, according to the Roman Ritual, n. 16. But if it has emitted another member, which indicates vital movement, let it be baptized conditionally on that member; and then, if having been born it lives, let it again be baptized under condition. Thus the Ritual, loc. cit.

68. III. On the Caesarean operation. This operation consists in this, that the membranes which cover the uterus and the uterus itself are cut, so that from it may be brought forth the infant who cannot be brought to the light by the natural way; it is called Caesarean, because by this method Julius was born, and on that account called Caesar (from the word caesus); physicians call the same thing hysterotomy.

(A) When this operation is done on a living mother, if she is robust and the physician skilled, and moreover antiseptics and other means very well known to surgeons are employed, generally both the mother and the infant are saved¹; nevertheless some danger of death remains for each. - This being posited, it is asked whether the mother is held to suffer Caesarean section, so that her offspring can receive baptism. (a) First, all confess that she is not held if the infant can be baptized in the uterus; for even if there is hope of saving the life of the mother and of the child, this is not so certain that therefore the mother is strictly held to undergo a dangerous operation; hence such an obligation is not to be urged.

¹ Eschbach demonstrates this, p. 340-344, by the testimony of physicians. - Another operation, which is called symphysiotomy, consists in the cutting of the symphysis of the pubic bones, by which the opening of the pelvis is made broader, so that the offspring can more easily pass through it; this is not free from danger, but, if in a particular case it is judged safer by a prudent physician than Caesarean section, nothing prevents its being permitted.

(b) But if the infant cannot be baptized in the uterus and Caesarean section is the only means of procuring the salvation of the infant (which today at least rarely happens), not a few teach that the mother is held to permit the operation, provided she is sufficiently robust, the physician skilled, and precautions can be employed which remove probable danger of death; for, by the law of charity, we ought to prefer the salvation of our neighbor to our own temporal good. But many say that there is no strict obligation of undergoing this, for, that we may be held to expose life for the salvation of our neighbor, it is necessary that there be certain hope of saving him; but in the case such certainty is not present, since, notwithstanding the aforesaid precautions, some danger of death remains not only for the mother, but also for her offspring. - Hence in practice the Caesarean operation can be advised, but not strictly urged².

² Sometimes the danger for the mother and her offspring can also be removed by acceleration of childbirth, which can be done without grave danger for the infant after seven months have already elapsed after conception. Concerning its liceity the Holy Office on May 4, 1898 wrote back: "Acceleration of childbirth is not illicit of itself, provided it is performed from just causes and at that time and in those modes, by which from ordinary contingencies the lives of the mother and fetus are cared for." (Acta S. Sedis, XXX, p. 704).

69. (B) But when a pregnant mother has died, there is present a grave obligation, from charity, of performing Caesarean section, whenever it is probable that the fetus has not perished, so that the offspring can be baptized and perhaps its life preserved. This obligation falls first upon physicians and surgeons; but if these are lacking, also upon others who can furnish this without danger to the infant. But it is not licit for a priest, not indeed because such an operation of itself is repugnant to priestly honor, since there is question of a soul to be saved by a legitimate means; but because of the danger of scandal which many would suffer from it; for it is a lesser evil that an infant die without baptism than that scandal be given to many adults. Hence in this sense the Holy See responded several times¹, especially December 13, 1899. But the priest ought prudently to take care with all his strength that the operation be performed by others, especially by a physician². - That the life of the infant in the uterus of the dead mother may more easily be preserved, when Caesarean section is not performed at once, the uterus is to be covered with cloths, so that it may retain heat; but it is useless to keep the mouth of the mother open, since this does not in the least help the respiration of the infant.

¹ Thus the Holy Office, Feb. 15, 1780 and Dec. 13, 1899, apud Acta S. Sedis, XXXII, p. 502-503.

² In some States no one except a physician can licitly perform such an operation.

70. Corollaries. (A) If the confessor, from the confession of a sick girl, knows that she is illegitimately pregnant, no one knowing it, he ought to admonish her that nothing is to be done which could injure the life of the infant. But if she is in proximate danger of death, he ought to induce her to disclose the matter to a discreet person, so that, after her death, the Caesarean operation can be done and the infant baptized. This the girl can furnish: (a) by writing letters, in which she declares that she wills that after death the uterus be opened and the offspring baptized; these letters, signed and closed, she will hand to a trustworthy person, to be opened only after death: for thus she will provide, insofar as can be done, for her reputation and for the salvation of the offspring; (b) if she cannot write, let her manifest the matter by living voice to a wholly discreet person, who will reveal the fact only after her death. - If nevertheless she is in good faith, and it is prudently feared that she may not acquiesce, the confessor can be silent.

71. (B) Since the eternal salvation of many infants depends on the way in which physicians and midwives put into execution the aforesaid rules concerning fetuses to be baptized, it is the office of the pastor to instruct them diligently both on the necessity and on the manner of baptizing aborted fetuses and infants in danger, whether in the mother's uterus or after birth; for thus he will perform an excellent work of charity, and will assign to the heavenly fatherland not a few of those little ones concerning whom Christ was accustomed to say: "Suffer the little children to come to me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God."¹

¹ Mark, X, 14.

1. BAPTISM. —Since the coming of Christ Baptism is "the laver of regeneration,"¹ in which every man must be washed, either actually (in re), or at least in desire (in voto), in order to be saved.²

² John III, 5.—Conc. Trident., Sess. VI, c. 4; Sess. VII, De Bopt., can. 2 sqq. (Denzinger-Bannwart, n, 796, 858 sqq.)—Cfr. Pesch, Prae- Sess, Praelect. Dogm., Vol. VI, 3rd ed., pp. 181 sqq.

¹ Tit. III, 5.

The necessity of Baptism, therefore, is a necessitas medii; but it is also a necessitas praecepti, on account of Christ's command to the Apostles to teach and baptize all nations.³

³ Matth. XXVIII, 19.

The precept of receiving Baptism obliges all who have the use of reason and are capable of receiving this Sacrament.⁴ Nothing can dispense from this duty except utter inability. a) Baptism being "the Sacrament of faith," is necessary for all men, including the children of Christian parents, and as an indispensable condition of membership in the mystic body of Christ imposes certain well-defined duties.

⁴ Conc. Trident., Sess. V, can. 4; Sess. VI, c. 7 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 799); Rit. Rom., De Sacr. Bapt., tit. 2, c. 1, n. 1.

Parents and their representatives are bound under pain of grievous sin to have their children baptized as soon as possible after birth. To allow a child to die without Baptism is a mortal sin. As regards the time, due attention should be paid to approved custom and local ecclesiastical regulations. Under the present discipline infants must be baptized as soon as it can conveniently be done.⁵ Most theologians deem it a mortal sin to defer Baptism for more than a month without reasonable cause. It is safe to say that the reception of this most important Sacrament should not be postponed for more than a few days unless there be some very good reason for delay.

⁵ Cat. Rom., P. II, c. 2, qu. 33. — Decree of the Holy Office, of Jan. 11, 1899: “It must be urged that Baptism be administered as soon as possible.” — Codex Juris Can., can. 770: "Infants are to be baptized as soon as possible; and pastors and preachers are frequently to remind the faithful of this grave obligation of theirs."

The Rituale Romanum forbids a child to be baptized in utero matris on the ground that the Sacrament cannot be validly administered under such conditions. This prohibition is based on an assumption which has proved to be unfounded. With the means now at command it is possible to baptize an infant in utero, and therefore it should be done. If the head can be reached, the child should be baptized in the regular way, and the Baptism must not be repeated if the child is born alive; if the head cannot be reached but some other limb protrudes, the child should be baptized conditionally and rebaptized sub conditione after birth.⁶

⁶ Codex Iuris Can., can. 746, § 1: "No one enclosed in the mother’s womb is to be baptized until there is probable hope that, once duly delivered, he can be baptized. If an infant has put forth the head and danger of death is imminent, he is to be baptized on the head; nor afterward, if he survives, is he to be baptized again conditionally. If he has put forth another member, he is to be baptized conditionally on it if danger is imminent; and then, if he lives after birth, he is again to be baptized conditionally." —Cfr. Rit. Rom., De Sacr. Bapt., tit. 2, c. 1, n. 16. —Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 68, art. 11.

Apparently still-born infants, and such as are incompletely developed (foetus abortivus) or abnormally shaped (monstra), should be conditionally baptized if there is doubt whether they are dead or alive.⁷

⁷ Codex Iuris Can., can. 747, 748.

In case a mother dies during pregnancy, the fetus should be carefully extracted from the womb and baptized, —absolutely if it is certainly alive, conditionally if there be doubt.⁸

⁸ Rit. Rom., De Sacr. Bapt., tit. 2, c. 1, n. 17. —Cfr. Stohr-Kannamuller, Handbuch der Pastoralmedisin, 5th ed., Freiburg 1909, pp. 479 sqq.; Pruner, Lehrb. d, Pastoraltheol., Vol. I, 2nd ed., pp. 157 sqq. —Codex Iuris Can., can. 746, § 4.

Infants should be baptized privately immediately after birth if there is reason to fear that they will die before the Sacrament can be administered in the ordinary way. This precept implies the duty, on the part of physicians and midwives, of calling attention to such danger, where it exists, and on the part of all concerned of seeing to it that the Sacrament is administered in time.⁹

⁹ Codex Iuris Can., can. 759, § 1; can. 743. —Rit. Rom., De Sacr. Bapt., tit. 2, c. 1, n. 13. —The decree of the Holy Office of Jan. 11, 1899, already quoted, says: "It can then be permitted that the midwife confer it when there is a positive fear that the child will die during the delay." —Cfr. J. B. Geniesse, La Mort Reclle et la Mart Apparente et leurs Rapports avec I'Administration des Sacrements, Paris 1906; J. Antonelli, Medicina Pastoralis, Vol. I, 2nd ed., Rome 1906, pp. 265 sqq.

b) After having their child baptized, parents are in duty bound to give it a good Christian education, in order that the grace conferred by Baptism may be preserved. In case of death or neglect, this duty devolves upon the sponsors, of whom there should be at least one and not more than two.¹⁰

¹⁰ Codex Iuris Can., can. 760, 764. —Rit. Rom., De Sacr. Bapt., tit. 2, c. 1, n. 25. —Cfr. C. Krieg, Wissenschaft der Seelenleitung, Vol. I, p. 110. Under the new Code no spiritual relationship is incurred by Baptism except between the baptizing minister and the person baptized, and between the latter and the sponsors (can. 768).

(cc. 737-769)

Utility. - In the treatise on the sacrament most necessary, three things are especially useful to know: who can or must be baptized; what are the entirely secure modes of conferring baptism; what ceremonies are to be joined with baptism, and by what necessity and in what way they are to be used. It will also help to know accurately the conditions by which the matrimonial impediment from spiritual relationship arises.

— Appendix II belongs to this section. Historical-Liturgical. Cf. Appendix II.

— The sacrament of baptism is the sacrament of regeneration, through water in the word (Roman Catechism).

This regeneration comprehends the impression of character, by which one becomes a member of the Church and, remotely or proximately, fit for the other sacraments, especially for participating in the sacrifice of the New Law; remission, by way of ablution, of original guilt and of personal sins, made by the infusion of sanctifying grace; condonation of every debt of punishment; adoptive filiation of God; and the special right of the help of actual graces for the profession of Christian life. Regeneration has its beginning from character, but is perfected by the infusion of sanctifying grace.

Water, in the definition, is placed for ablution by immersion; word, for the form which contains the invocation of the Most Holy Trinity over the one to be baptized.

Baptism, besides its essential unity, also has numerical unity in the same supposit, which we profess in the very Apostles' Creed when we say: I believe one baptism.

As to the remission of faults and punishments, observe that not even in baptism is any fault remitted without attrition. But, that attrition being placed as a condition, every fault and every punishment, by force of baptism, is condoned ex opere operato.

In baptism the reality and sacrament, or baptismal character, according to Cardinal Billot (De baptismo, Thesis XXIII), has the account of consecration to the worship of the Most Holy Trinity, according to the rite of the Christian religion, and of passive potency, by which man is made capable of receiving those things which belong to Christian worship. It is the character of the Christian man. But according to R. P. de la Taille (Mysterium Fidei, p. 581 note), it is "the interior consecration by which man is aggregated to the priesthood of Christ in order to offering, through the ministry of priests, the victim of redemption and to participating by communion."

— Analogically, insofar as they in some way supply for the sacrament, a twofold other baptism is distinguished: of the Spirit, or of the Holy Spirit, and of blood.

1. Baptism of the Spirit is an act of perfect charity or contrition, insofar as it contains at least a tacit desire for the sacrament. Therefore it can be had in adults alone. It imprints no character; it does not necessarily take away every venial fault; and, that it take away every debt of temporal punishment, an act is required whose intensity is equivalent to the punishments otherwise to be sustained. But it takes away every mortal fault together with the debt of eternal punishment, according to this: "He who loves me will be loved by my Father" (Gospel of St. John, 14:21).

2. Baptism of blood is martyrdom itself of a non-baptized person. For from a privilege which the Fathers most clearly teach and read as promised in St. Matthew, 10:32 and 39, "He who shall confess me before men, I also will confess him before my Father... He who has lost his life on account of me will find it," every debt of fault and punishment is blotted out by true martyrdom. The chief reason of the privilege seems to be perfect imitation of the death of Christ.

Martyrdom is defined as the suffering of death for the faith or for Christian virtue. The suffering of death is as it were the material element, concerning which the more common opinion holds that it suffices that a lethal wound has been received, or that a cause has been placed which, without miracle, had to bring on death. Thus Benedict XIV, De Beatif., 3, 12 and following, perhaps against St. Thomas, 2, 2, q. 124, art. 4. - The formal element is that one suffer for the faith or for Christian virtue: hence formal heretics cannot be martyrs; but it suffices that death be inflicted in hatred of Christian virtue. Indeed there are those who think it enough that someone, for example while plague rages, as he ministers to the sick from charity, contracts the plague and thus falls for Christian virtue. Cf. St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 100.

He dies a martyr who is killed while sleeping, if before, conscious of threats, he persevered in faith or virtue. Nor is an option between life and apostasy necessary, provided the dying person accepts the killing. Probably they are martyrs who, earning stipends for the cause of the Pontiff or of the Church, have been killed while fighting. Indeed probably soldiers can be martyrs who, falling in a just war, refer their devotion to their fatherland to God. For piety toward the fatherland and legal justice are Christian virtues, and "any human good whatever can be a cause of martyrdom, according as it is referred to God" (St. Thomas, 2, 2, q. 124, art. 5 ad 3). But since it is unknown with what soul soldiers died, the Church does not honor them as martyrs.

Martyrdom cannot be denied without rashness to infants who are killed in hatred of Christ; but in an adult there is required: a) consent to death, or acceptance of martyrdom at least habitually; b) if he had been outside the state of grace because of actual sin, a movement of penance. Must this be of contrition, or does attrition suffice? And we judge the effort made to elicit contrition to suffice. Moreover, that the grace of perfect charity or contrition should be lacking in him who gives to Christ the greatest sign of love seems to be a chimerical hypothesis.

Not a few demand, for the true account of martyrdom, that the martyr not resist, so that thus he may perfectly imitate Christ, who was killed as a lamb. Yet more probably force which martyrs have opposed to the impious does not stand in the way of martyrdom, if they defended the cause of Christ more than themselves: for instance, if a missionary wished to protect a Christian people.

That a martyr be increased with the honors of the blessed, miracles properly so called are not required; nevertheless, certain signs are demanded of themselves, so that the martyrdom itself may be certain. Among signs this one stands out: if the blood poured out has been the seed of Christians.

— Comparison of the Three Baptisms. 1. Baptism of water operates ex opere operato; of the Spirit, ex opere operantis; of blood, as it were ex opere operato, and in adults, at the same time ex opere operantis.

2. Baptism of blood excels the others: it equally blots out faults and punishments; it configures more perfectly to the death of Christ (Philippians 3:10). For in martyrdom conformity is had by imitation, in baptism of the Spirit by affection, and in baptism of water by figural representation; it manifests a more splendid efficacy of the power of the Holy Spirit, who operates hiddenly in the sacrament, moves the heart in baptism of the Spirit, and in baptism of blood exhibits the greatest proof of love; finally, it confers the aureole, or the reward, the accidental joy on account of an excellent victory reported over the enemy in this life (St. Thomas, supplement to 3 part, q. 96, art. 1, c.).

Yet baptism of water alone imprints character, renders the baptized person capable of the other sacraments, and confers sacramental graces. Wherefore neither other baptism dispenses from the obligation of receiving, when occasion is given, the sacrament of baptism; just as it does not dispense the baptized from use of the sacrament of penance for mortal sins not yet confessed and committed after baptism of water.

— Remote Matter. 1. Valid matter is every water, in a liquid state, which, according to the common estimation of men, is held as natural⁽¹⁾ and usual. Such is water of a spring, of a well, of rain; water dissolved from snow, hail, ice; distilled water or water chemically made. Nor does an accidental change of color, taste, or odor stand in the way, which is had in sea water or in sulphurous water. It does not harm the value if it has been mixed with another body so moderately that it retains the common use and name of water, for instance lye with a little soap, a broth thinly cooked with meat. For in every liquid of this kind one can truly be reborn from water, which from the Gospel of St. John, 3:5, is necessary.

Inept matter for baptism is saliva, sweat, tears, urine, water expressed from the juice of roses, herbs, plants; beer; water which from mixture is no longer suitable for ablution, nor is named water: for instance mud, broth, wine mixed with water. For in the moral estimation of men, such water is not judged natural and usual.

Doubtful matter is water dissolved from salt, flowing from a vine or trees, physically drawn from wine, flowers, or plants,⁽²⁾ ice itself and snow not dissolved (St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 104); very thin broth and beer, lye, indeed rosewater.

2. Licit remote matter is, in private or non-solemn baptism, any natural and pure water, although use of baptismal water is especially to be advised to a priest; in solemn baptism, water blessed for this is of itself to be used.

Baptismal water is to be prepared twice in the year, on Holy Saturday and on the vigil of Pentecost, with oils recently consecrated, if these could be had. Recently, that is, on Thursday, in the Supper of the Lord, which preceded the preparation. If water in the baptistery has diminished so that it does not seem likely to suffice, "other non-blessed water is to be mixed in, even repeatedly, yet in a lesser quantity" (c. 767, §2) than that which remains pure or already once or twice mixed. If the water has entirely failed, the pastor should pour fresh water into the well-cleaned font and bless it with the special rite prescribed in the liturgical books. And to missionaries there is also conceded the faculty of using the shorter formula which has its name from Paul III and is found in the Appendix of the Ritual, at the beginning. Where true danger of disease is present, especially where an infant is to be baptized in the womb, the Holy Office, August 21, 1901 (Coll. P. F., n. 2121), permitted use of water mixed with mercury bichloride corrosive, or sublime corrosif. The proposed proportion was 1/1000.

Use of doubtful matter is permitted only in necessity and under condition. To use very impure water, when other can be had, is a grave sin of irreverence. He who uses natural water instead of baptismal in solemn baptism from negligence seems to sin gravely.

⁽¹⁾ In c. 737, §1, by the words "natural water" is understood that which is commonly held as true and is usual. It matters little whether it has been made by human art or by nature.

⁽²⁾ Since chemically made water is certain matter, we do not see what can be objected against water whose elements have been found chemically in plants rather than immediately in hydrogen and oxygen.

— The proximate matter of baptism is ablution which, as St. Thomas notes, 3 p., q. 66, art. 7 ad 2, preserves some account of immersion, since always in ablution at least some part of the body is placed under water. Each account seems to be required. Or, better, the proximate matter should be called ablution by way of immersion. For in the Scriptures themselves baptism is said to us to be a "washing of water" (Ephesians 5:26) and "burial together" with Christ: "For we were buried together with him by baptism into death" (Romans 6:3). In baptism we die with Christ, so that with him we may rise again. And the very word baptizo, baptizein, means to dip, to immerse.

Therefore for the value of baptism there is need that water in such quantity physically touch the body, at least as to a principal part, that someone morally can be said to be washed.

This can be had in either way, whether the body is moved toward the water, as in immersion, or the water is moved to the body by infusion or by sprinkling. Moreover water can be moved in such a way that either several parts of water, for example of water springing forth, simultaneously touch several parts of the body, or a smaller quantity of water, yet more than one drop, as it seems, successively touches several parts of the body. This same is obtained in a twofold way: either water flows by running down, or by hand or even by a well-wetted finger it successively reaches the parts of the body. Observe that movement of the hand or finger is required, since simple application of a wetted hand is not judged to be ablution.

Therefore baptism conferred over an infant's clothing or over the mother's womb is null: in neither way is the infant himself physically touched. Baptism conferred over the afterbirth, or the deciduous membrane by which the body is contained in the mother's womb, is very doubtful, since it is not proved to be a true part of the infant. There seems to be lesser reason for doubting concerning baptism by which only the hair has been wetted. Yet the matter is controverted. Wherefore, where the hair is thick, let it be parted by hand, or, what is better, let baptism be conferred on the forehead. And because it sometimes happens that the whole body of a newborn infant is anointed with oil, he will act more cautiously who, not content with pouring, at the same time washes the forehead by hand.

Baptism in which only a less principal part, such as finger, hand, foot, is washed is also doubtful. And unless the head has been washed, sufficient doubt remains so that baptism ought to be repeated (St. Thomas, 3 p., q. 68, art. 11 ad 4). Wherefore this manner of acting, by which, the membrane ruptured, an infant in the womb is washed by means of a small tube, is less certain than Ballerini proclaims it to be, De baptismo et de quinto praecepto. Add that there is some doubt whether an infant, before he is separated from the mother or brought forth, is capable of baptism.

Baptism is doubtful and to be repeated under condition if only one or another drop has been used, for example, if a multitude has been sprinkled as though with holy water. And the Holy Office, December 14, 1898, ordered that baptism conferred by way of anointing on the forehead with the thumb wetted in baptismal water be repeated under condition.

In baptism by immersion, a few with Soto and Toledo require that the baptized person emerge from the water. This seems false, because for the body to be washed there is no need that the body emerge, and baptizein is merely to dip. Therefore the baptism of an infant whom, while pronouncing the words, you cast into a river seems to be valid. But unless the death of the infant is already imminent, the effect of death is badly permitted, so that the guilt of a certain homicide is contracted. In the case of extreme necessity, where the infant otherwise would die without baptism, some indeed, with St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 106, condemn the action as homicide, but others probably say that the effect of baptism at least probable is immediate and so good that, on account of that proportionate reason, the other effect of accelerated death can be permitted. Cf. Lehmkuhl, II, 86, 5, with Palmieri approving, t. IV, n. 729. But all permit that in extreme necessity an infant be washed with cold water.

— By canon 758 four modes of washing are held as valid: infusion, which now is almost the only one used by Western Catholics; immersion; sprinkling; the mixed mode of infusion and immersion, when the one to be baptized is immersed and, while he is in the pool, is at the same time poured over with water by the baptizer. The Code prescribes, however, that "the first or second mode, or the mixed mode from both, which is more in use, be retained, according to the approved ritual books of the various Churches." In reality baptism by sprinkling is plainly less secure. Through twelve centuries, immersion was the ordinary mode, which still is used for infants at Milan. St. Thomas held it as safer, 3 p., q. 66, art. 7, c.

— The prescribed form of baptism in the Latin Church is this: "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." From this, this form of the Greeks does not differ substantially: "The servant of Christ is baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

That we may judge concerning the essential words, these five things are to be observed, which are signified in the utterance of the form: 1. the person baptizing, at least implicitly, which in the form of the Greeks is not neglected: the words "the servant of Christ is baptized," uttered assertively, are equivalent to "is baptized by me"; 2. the act of baptizing, so that the form be connected with the matter and, by indicating the end of the ablution, determine the same; 3. the person who is baptized: for the form no less than the ablution must affect a certain person; 4. the unity of the divine nature, by the word in the name; 5. the trinity of Persons, and that explicitly and distinctly, by common words.

At least practically, these things are to be demanded. Concerning the necessity of each one, theoretically, one can doubt greatly. Thus in the year 1633, September 8, the Holy Office declared this form of the schismatic Armenians true and legitimate: "May my hand now baptize in the name of the Father; may my hand now baptize in the name of the Son; may my hand now baptize in the name of the Holy Spirit" (Coll. P. F., I, n. 74).

— Therefore he baptizes validly, although he sins venially, who for I baptize says: I wash, I dip, etc.; for the action is well indicated by these words. It is not entirely the same thing to indicate the action and to indicate the effect of the action, so that the English formula "I christen thee" can give some occasion for doubting.⁽¹⁾ - He baptizes validly who for you designates the subject by the common name servant of Christ, in the manner of the Greeks, or by the proper name "Peter"; or who for the sake of honor says, "I baptize Your Lordship"; or who omits I, or adds Amen. - The Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide and the Holy Office declared valid the formula "with the name" used without bad intention. A very brief interruption, "I baptize you (this water is cold) in the name," etc., does not stand in the way of value; nor do these additions stand in the way: "in the name of the Father who created you, of the Son who redeemed you," etc. - If, with the order changed, you say, "In the name of the Father... I baptize you," the baptism is valid.

⁽¹⁾ Lehmkuhl, II, 88, while he observes this, nevertheless adds that this form is much more probably valid. Sabetti-Barrett, Comp., n. 657, incline rather toward the negative side. Moreover another certain form is available to English speakers: to baptise.

— These forms are not valid: "I baptize in the name," etc., when the designation of the person to be baptized is entirely omitted; - "I baptize you in the names..." since the essence or divine nature is thus signified as multiple; - "I baptize you in the name of God or of the Most Holy Trinity," or "in the name of one and triune God," or "in the name of the three Persons," or "of the Father and of the Son," with the person of the Holy Spirit omitted. The reason is because the three divine Persons are not distinctly expressed; - "I baptize you in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit"; or "with the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit"; or "in the name of the Father through the Son, in the Holy Spirit," because either all or certainly clear signification of unity of essence is lacking; - "in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ," at least today, because of the omitted invocation of the Most Holy Trinity. How the texts which seem to sound as if baptism was conferred by the Apostles in the name of Christ, and the response of Nicholas I to the Bulgarians which seems to hold this formula as valid, are to be explained: this must be borrowed from the dogmatic theologians; - if you should say of the Mother, of me, because the sense varies; - if a cough, not plainly momentary, separates the syllables of one word, or, too protracted, for instance through half a quarter of an hour, takes away the coherence of the words; - if you add the name of the Blessed Virgin Mary as a part of the form: therefore the value then will depend upon the intention of the agent.⁽²⁾

— The forms are doubtful if, with the particle in removed, you say only "name," or substitute "in the virtue, in the majesty of the Father," etc. For it is not plainly certain whether in the name signifies "by the authority of the Father," etc., in which case the indicated changes would be only accidental; or "with the Father invoked." - There has been doubt concerning the formula: "I baptize you in the name of the Father, in the name of the Son, in the name of the Holy Spirit," or "I baptize you in the name of the Father; I baptize you in the name of the Son; I baptize you in the name of the Holy Spirit," because the unity of essence might not be sufficiently expressed. But the Holy Office, January 11, 1882, declared that these are valid. Also it does not seem that one should doubt concerning the value of the form: "In the name of God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy Spirit," unless you wished to express three gods. - The omitted conjunction and before the word "Holy Spirit" gives place to lighter or graver doubt, according as, for example, while you pronounce the words, you separated the Son from the Holy Spirit sufficiently or not. On the contrary, if it is omitted before the word Son, since Father and Son of themselves bring in distinction, it introduces not even doubt; - "I baptize you in the name of the Begetter, the Begotten, and the Spirated"; or "in the name of the Almighty, the Wise, and the Good"; or "in the name of the Unbegotten, the Begotten, and the Good"; because the Trinity of Persons is not explained by words by which it ought and can be apprehended by all the faithful.

⁽²⁾ Although the form must be sensible, nevertheless interior intention can effect that this or that be said as a part of the form, just as interior intention effects that these droplets adhering to the chalice be consecrated or not. Wherefore it is not required that it appear what is said as the form or what is added as an invocation.

— The same person must wash and pronounce the form. Wherefore baptism seems to be invalid if the one to be baptized, while another says the form, slips into the water,⁽³⁾ or is pushed forward by someone other than the baptizer, or places himself under water springing from a fountain or falling in drops. But it is valid if the minister himself places the one to be baptized under water thus naturally falling.

What if the water falls not naturally but by the work of another? Ballerini thinks it does not matter for what cause the water flows. But others object that then from two persons one washer is constituted, so that baptism is doubtful (Lehmkuhl, II, 86, 4).

⁽³⁾ It is confirmed by a response of the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, November 17, 1916 (A. A. S., VIII, 478). Yet in a case of necessity the thing will be able to be attempted under condition, because of the moral unity of persons, by which the one to be baptized seems to act at the minister's command.

— When a triple pouring of water is made, the form is more rightly uttered in such a way that it is not finished before the third ablution, because the form with any first ablution constitutes baptism. But whether you have pronounced the form immediately before or immediately after the ablution, this does not stand in the way of value.

— The invocation of the Most Holy Trinity is to be made upon the one to be baptized, not upon the baptizer, who will have thought in this way to call upon the help of the Most Holy Trinity for baptizing.

— Necessity of Baptism. "Baptism, the gate and foundation of the sacraments, necessary for all unto salvation in reality or at least in desire," is such: this c. 737 pronounces concerning the sacrament of baptism.

— I. The sacrament of baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word. It imprints character, remits, by way of ablution, original guilt and, with the condition of attrition placed, personal sins before baptism, indeed, probably those committed in baptism itself; condones every debt of punishment; makes an adoptive son of God; confers the right of special help for the profession of Christian life.

The sacrament is in some way supplied by: baptism of the Spirit, or the act of perfect contrition or charity, insofar as it contains at least tacit desire for the sacrament; through that act at least mortal fault with the debt of punishment is taken away; and baptism of blood, or death suffered for the faith or Christian virtue. Killing in hatred of Christ completes the martyrdom of infants, while in adults acceptance of martyrdom is necessary, and, if they have been stained by personal mortal fault, effort toward contrition. By martyrdom every debt of punishment is taken away, and the aureole is conferred. Yet character is imprinted by the sacrament alone.

II. The remote matter of the sacrament is natural water, or that which is commonly held as true and usual. Moderate admixture of another thing does not harm the value, provided the name and common use of water are preserved. And in private baptism all pure water is licit; in solemn baptism, water blessed for this is to be used, and indeed, as it seems, under grave fault. Baptismal water is to be prepared twice in the year with oils consecrated in that year, if these could be had. Deficiency of water is provided for in various ways. The shorter formula of blessing, that of Paul III, is permitted to missionaries.

The proximate matter is ablution, which can be done by immersion, simple or mixed with infusion, by infusion, and by sprinkling. That baptism be certain, there is need that on the head the man can morally be said to be washed. The mode in use must be observed. Sprinkling today has become obsolete.

III. The prescribed form in the Latin Church is: "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Therefore there must be signified: the baptizer, the baptized, the act of baptizing, for it would not suffice to indicate the effect, the unity of the divine nature, "in the name," the Trinity of persons explicitly and distinctly, by common names, so that baptism conferred in the name of Christ is to be repeated. The same person must wash and pronounce the form. It does not stand in the way of value whether the form is pronounced immediately before or immediately after the ablution. The addition of the name of some saint will corrupt this form or not according to the intention by which the name is pronounced as part of the form or otherwise. The Trinity is to be invoked upon the baptized person, not upon the baptizer.

— Any man using reason, of whatever faith or infidelity, state or sex, validly ministers baptism. For licit administration, solemn baptism, or that which the rites and ceremonies of the Church accompany, is to be distinguished from non-solemn baptism.

— 1. The ordinary minister of solemn baptism is a priest; yet the conferral of baptism is a parochial function which, apart from the local Ordinary or one's own pastor, in his own territory, another priest does not administer licitly except by license of the pastor or local Ordinary. Yet this license, in a case of necessity, is legitimately presumed (c. 738, §1).

But one's own pastor, from c. 94, is the pastor of domicile or quasi-domicile, who nevertheless, outside his own territory, is prohibited from baptizing solemnly without due license of the Ordinary or pastor of the place (c. 739).

A traveler is to be baptized by his own pastor in his own parish if this can be done easily and without delay; otherwise he can be solemnly baptized by any pastor in his own territory.

Statutes sometimes define the distance which is judged excessive for a child to have to be brought to his own pastor; yet it will always be lawful to do this. Indeed a custom at least centenary can be tolerated by the bishop, which always gives faculty to the pastor of the place of baptizing children born in his parish.

The supplying of ceremonies after baptism conferred in necessity without ceremonies is also reserved to one's own pastor. It is less certain whether baptism which is to be repeated privately under condition is reserved to the pastor (Lehmkuhl, II, 91).

Of vagrants, or of those who have only a diocesan domicile or quasi-domicile, the proper pastor is the pastor of the place where they actually are (c. 94), so that they are licitly baptized by any pastor in his own territory.

Where there are still lacking parishes or quasi-parishes into which the diocese or quasi-diocese is divided, the proper minister of baptism, besides the local Ordinary, is defined by peculiar statutes and received customs.

An outside pastor who without notable cause or the presumed consent of the proper pastor or Ordinary baptizes an infant brought to him is judged gravely to usurp another's jurisdiction. Fear lest baptism be neglected sanely excuses him entirely.

— 2. The extraordinary minister of solemn baptism is a deacon. But licit use of his power requires: a) license of the local Ordinary or pastor; b) a just cause for conceding that license. When necessity urges, a deacon can legitimately presume the license.

A just cause does not mean a grave cause. A multitude of persons to be baptized, or a multitude of penitents whose confessions must be heard, or another serious inconvenience permits a pastor to commit baptism to a deacon.

But the cause for presuming this license must be much graver. It is necessary that necessity of conferring baptism urge.

But a layman or cleric below a deacon can never baptize solemnly. And that solemn ministration makes the same irregular from delict (c. 985, 7°). By the general words which this canon uses, it seems to resolve the controversy whether only clerics or also laymen would become irregular by this usurpation. This irregularity is also incurred by a priest who by canonical penalty is prohibited from this ministration (c. 985, 7°). But, unless there is question of censured persons to be avoided, the excommunicated, interdicted, and suspended, when asked by the faithful, can licitly confer the sacraments (cc. 2261, §2; 2275, 2°; and 2284).

But a deacon who baptizes solemnly without commission, since from c. 741 itself he has the power, although he uses it badly, escapes this irregularity.

— 3. In necessity, non-solemn baptism is legitimately ministered by anyone, "the due matter, form, and intention being observed; but insofar as it can be done, two witnesses or at least one are to be used, by whom the conferral of baptism can be proved" (c. 742, §1).

This necessity, in our regions, will almost always be danger of death; but in regions of missions, the very absence of a priest or difficulty of approaching him. For the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide, January 27, 1788; January 16, 1804 (Collect., 593, 674), praised the custom of enjoining catechists or more prudent laymen that they quickly baptize the infants of Christians, even those who are well.

Yet the order is to be observed, so that a priest be preferred to a deacon, a deacon to a subdeacon, a cleric to a layman, a man to a woman, unless the reason of modesty or even the greater skill of the woman advises that she be preferred (c. 742, §2).

Change of this order is judged light. Yet they except if before a faithful person a heretic is used, or before a priest a layman. This latter, however, we judge to have been said too severely. For there is question of private baptism, concerning which the Code establishes the principle that the same can be ministered by anyone, and in one and the same sentence exhibits the order by which a priest is said to be preferred to a layman, a man to a woman. It seems little likely that neglected preference is in one case mortal, in another merely venial.

— Nevertheless by a special prohibition both parents are prohibited from baptizing their offspring, unless in danger of death when no other is present who may baptize (c. 742, §3).

The present-day cause of this prohibition can no longer be sought from the spiritual relationship which, as baptizer, a husband would contract with his wife, because from c. 768 the baptizer is no longer bound by any relationship with the parents of the baptized. This other cause subsists: that it is not fitting for a twofold paternity, natural from generation, spiritual from the administered sacrament of regeneration, to be conjoined in the same person. This reason does not seem to induce a grave obligation.

As is evident of itself, if a parent is more skilled, he will safely be able, in order to provide better for the salvation of the offspring, to baptize the infant himself rather than one less fit.

The pastor must take care that the faithful, especially midwives, physicians, and surgeons, thoroughly learn the right mode of baptizing for a case of necessity (c. 743).

The opportuneness of this precept is demonstrated by lamentable errors.

— "The baptism of adults, where it can conveniently be done, is to be deferred to the local Ordinary, so that, if he wishes, it may be conferred more solemnly by him or by his delegate" (c. 744).

These words are placed so temperately that they seem to contain, rather than a precept, a wish which the Ordinary himself can fulfill by a statute by which he reserves the baptism of adults to himself. This is customary enough in our parts. Elsewhere, the very circumstances of places will stand in the way of that reservation.

Besides, there is question here of baptism to be conferred absolutely, not of conditioned repetition, which often demands secrecy and is customarily done without ceremonies.

— Every man using reason baptizes validly. The priest is the ordinary minister of solemn baptism; yet he does not baptize licitly except by license, at least presumed, of the Ordinary or of the proper pastor, in his own territory. A traveler is to be baptized by his own pastor in his own parish if this can easily be done without delay; otherwise he is permitted to be baptized by any pastor in his own territory. The extraordinary minister of solemn baptism is a deacon by license of the Ordinary or pastor, conceded because of a just cause of inconvenience, or presumed in necessity.

In necessity, which in regions of missions is constituted by the very absence of a priest, any man legitimately ministers non-solemn baptism. A priest is to be preferred to a deacon, a deacon to a subdeacon, a cleric to a layman, a man to a woman, unless modesty or greater skill of the woman advises otherwise. Change of order is judged light, unless a heretic is preferred to a faithful person. Excepted is necessity of danger of death: parents are forbidden to baptize their own offspring. Absolute baptism of adults is often reserved to the Ordinary; and it is the wish of the Code that it be deferred to him of itself.

— One must begin from this highest principle: the capable and, of itself licit, subject of baptism is every and only wayfaring man, not yet baptized; who besides, if he has been an adult, has sufficiently consented to his baptism.

The right use of this principle demands that we distinguish: the infant in the womb, the abortive fetus or the monster brought forth, the born infant, the healthy adult, the adult in danger of death, and the doubtfully baptized infant or adult.

— I. On the Infant in the Womb. 1. Of itself complete birth is to be awaited. Danger lest he be brought forth dead gives cause for attempting baptism of the infant enclosed in the womb. But a fetus thus baptized must be baptized again under condition (c. 746, §§1 and 5). Cf. Hoornaert, Le baptême en cas d'urgence.

Canon 746, §1, prohibits the baptism of an infant enclosed in the womb "as long as there is probable hope that, rightly brought forth, he can be baptized." But the supreme necessity of this sacrament seems to allow that we understand these words of so probable a hope as equals moral certitude. Wherefore if there is probable danger of death before birth, we have said that baptism in the womb is to be attempted.

2. An infant who has put forth the head is, when danger of death urges, to be baptized absolutely on the head; nor is this baptism afterward to be repeated (c. 746, §2).

But if he has put forth another member, he is, when the same danger urges, to be baptized under condition; this baptism will have to be repeated under condition after birth (c. 746, §3).

With another distinction of parts omitted, the Code suppresses the controversies moved concerning these things, admitting absolute baptism on the head alone, and on every other part only conditioned baptism.

3. When a pregnant mother has died, "the fetus, extracted by those to whom it pertains, if he certainly lives, is to be baptized absolutely; if doubtfully, under condition" (c. 746, §4).

The fetus is extracted by the operation which, from Caesar, to whom it was useful, is called Caesarean. This operation certainly is to be done, even if conception was recent. Wherefore, as quickly as possible, a surgeon or another who can do it is to be called, meanwhile preserving the womb of the dead mother warm and opening her mouth; "nor is the physician perhaps saying that every effort is made in vain because the fetus is already dead to be easily believed: for indeed they rarely know this altogether certainly" (Lehmkuhl, II, 104).

Yet the priest himself, lest he become liable to a grave civil penalty or render religion hateful, will neither perform that section nor directly command it to be done; but by grave admonition he will try to induce the husband of the deceased woman, or relatives, or a physician, or a man endowed with public authority, to take care for that section. For already the doubtful effect itself excuses the priest for whom most grave inconveniences would have to be undergone; and the damage itself to religion supplies a public reason for abstaining. This reason moved the Holy See so that, on February 15, 1780, it prescribed to Missionaries in China that they commit the matter to the burden and office of surgeons. The Holy Office again referred to that decree on December 13, 1899. Cf. Coll. Pr. Fid., nn. 541 and 2073.

With inconveniences of this kind excluded, anyone, if a physician is lacking, could or should complete the incision from charity toward the infant perhaps to be saved. And by the principle of double effect, the danger of accelerating the death of the apparently dead mother is excused.

While the mother is living, that baptism of the infant, who seems unable to be brought forth alive by the natural way, be procured more certainly, Caesarean section is licit even with grave danger of death for the mother.

Today, since that section has become much less fatal, since, with sleep procured, every horror also is removed, that section is not rarely to be earnestly advised, and indeed early, lest the mother become unequal to the strength needed. And unless she herself is brought into grave peril, objectively she seems to be obliged to admit that section. Yet admonition will have to be made prudently, lest the good faith of the endangered mother be disturbed. The obligation itself, insofar as it arises from baptism to be conferred, is diminished when there is probable hope of validly baptizing the infant in the womb itself.

— II. 1. On the Abortive Fetus. "Care must be taken that all abortive fetuses, at whatever time brought forth, if they certainly live, be baptized absolutely; if doubtfully, under condition" (c. 747). For we do not know at what moment the spiritual soul is infused; nor do few think that this soul is infused from the first instant. Canon 747 seems to have been written according to this latter opinion; nevertheless, it by no means proposes it doctrinally, but merely hands down a practical norm.

Contrary to what Augustine thinks in c. 747 (A Commentary), relying too much on ocular observation, not after some days, but, as microscopic inspection demonstrates, immediately after penetration of the spermatozoon into the ovum, from the two pronuclei of the spermatozoon and ovum a nucleus is composed and there is had a being living by its own life, that is, a man. By the usage of physicians it is called an embryo; after six weeks, a fetus.

A certain sign of death is almost nothing except putrefaction, and beginning putrefaction does not suffice. But it happens often enough that a pregnant woman, while she is in agony, casts forth the fetus. Therefore one must beware lest the fetus be suffocated in the bed.

The better and safer way of baptizing these fetuses is by immersion in tepid water, taking care that while you pronounce the form, you immerse the fetus and then draw it out from the water.

Baptism does not seem to be conferred in a closed ovum, because the exterior membrane belongs least of all to the fetus. With Lehmkuhl approving, II, n. 104 note, and Ferberes, II, n. 825, Capellmann, Medicina pastoralis, proposes this way of baptizing the smallest fetuses enclosed in the ovum: that, the ovum carefully opened, the amniotic fluid be allowed to flow off slowly; and that then with the thumb and finger of each hand, you grasp some fold of the covering and rupture it so that the matter of the ovum flows out.

Sometimes instead of a fetus a mole is brought forth, or a mass of flesh, shapeless and without life, which remains from the fertilized ovum when unequal nutrition of the afterbirth and fetus has effected that the latter is as it were absorbed by the former. "Moreover," says Eschbach (Disp. physiologica theologicae, p. 2, d. 2, art. 2), "it is expedient also to cut apart and inspect moles themselves, since experience testifies that more than once a tiny infant has been found in them."

But it must not be dissembled that fetuses can scarcely be recognized unless they have been conceived for some weeks. Nevertheless, a most opportune admonition is made concerning the obligation of baptizing fetuses, since too frequently rather large fetuses are cast forth who ought to have been baptized and buried in a sacred place.

— 2. On a Monster. Today it is sufficiently certain that a woman cannot conceive from a brute animal, nor properly from a demon, who has power only to introduce human semen. Wherefore whatever living thing, whatever is not plainly certain to be destitute of life, and is brought forth from a woman, is to be baptized at least under condition.

An acardiac monster, which lacks heart and brain, is to be baptized under the condition if you live. It is always brought forth with a well-developed fetus and after this fetus. But Antonelli, t. 2, n. 401, advises that it be given uterine baptism immediately after the developed fetus has been brought forth, because scarcely otherwise is it brought forth except dead.

Concerning the unity of the subject rather than concerning its truth one can doubt. Therefore, if in a monster otherwise of human form, the chests and heads are doubled, baptism is to be conferred absolutely on each head; but if only either heads or chests are doubled, baptism is to be conferred absolutely on one head, conditionally on the other head or chest (d'Annibale, III, 274, note 38). If there are only several arms or legs, there is no reason for baptizing twice. Cf. c. 748.

— III. On the Born Infant. 1. That outside danger of death an infant before use of reason be licitly baptized, it is necessary that, without injury to the parents, grave danger of perversion can probably be removed. For reverence for the sacrament must be cared for; nor are evils to be done so that goods may come. Cf. Billot, De baptismo, who argues first from this, that it is injurious to parents that someone without authority insert himself in the governance and care of those who are constituted under the power of another (De sacramentis, I, Thesis XXIII).

Wherefore: a) provided his Catholic education has been secured, the infant of infidels is licitly baptized "if the parents or guardians, or at least one of them, consent; if the parents, that is, father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, or guardians, are lacking, or have lost right over him, or can exercise it in no way" (c. 750, §2).

b) "Concerning the baptism of infants of two heretics or schismatics, or of two Catholics who have lapsed into apostasy or heresy or schism, generally the same norm is to be observed" (c. 751).

The norm is placed less absolutely, because here not so much the right of parents, who by baptism are subject to the Church, as the difficulty and danger or harm of the business itself, stand in the way of Catholic education.

When the parents themselves offer a son to be baptized, unless they are moved by a superstitious end alone, they already seem virtually to consent to Catholic education. Yet prudence can prevent children who must remain among pagans from being baptized. Therefore the prescriptions of Ordinaries are to be observed by missionaries, or the Ordinaries must be asked by missionaries concerning sufficient cautions to be demanded.

Far more easily will sufficient hope of Catholic education be present if the parent himself offering or consenting to baptism has been Christian. Indeed concerning a child born of a Catholic and an infidel, even after the death of the faithful party, the Holy Office responded on July 6-8, 1898, to 4 (Coll. Pr. Fid., n. 2007): "If a possible hope shines forth that children of this kind can in their own time be instructed in the true religion, then, with cautions given, that is, with Catholic education promised, let them be baptized."

Wherefore baptism is not denied even to the children of socialists or unbelievers who were baptized Catholic.

Missionaries must also beware lest by their manner of acting they seem to foster the superstition of the parents. Yet the father does not sin by superstition who wills that his son be truly baptized so that he may be freed from disease.

2. In danger of death, that is, "when he is in that peril of life such that he is prudently foreseen likely to die before he reaches the use of reason," even when parents are unwilling the infant of infidels is licitly baptized (c. 750, §1). For then the spiritual necessity of the infant must be preferred to the right of parents.

In regions which are rarely visited by missionaries, it can happen that thus, even with parents unwilling, an infant is licitly baptized if, for example, after his thinness and the conditions of the region have been inspected, he is foreseen as probably likely to die before use of reason, and no better occasion of baptism is foreseen as going to be present. Yet it is necessary that the danger be personal to the child: a plague devastating the region does not suffice for all the children of pagans to be baptized.

Yet greater hatreds to be avoided against the Catholic religion, and cruelties against Catholics to be feared, can stand in the way so that, even in danger of death, infants are not baptized when parents are unwilling (Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide, April 7, 1727).

— IV. On the Adult Not Dying. 1. An adult here is judged anyone who has attained the use of reason; for he who enjoys reason is his own master for the business of eternal salvation. Cf. c. 745, §2, 2°.

2. In an adult, the will of receiving baptism is necessary for value. But licit reception besides supposes in him: a) faith, whose defect can be supplied by no other disposition. Wherefore an act of faith and knowledge of the truths which, whether from certain or from probable opinion, are to be explicitly believed by necessity of means, must absolutely be procured. For here the safer opinion is to be followed. Regularly also baptism is to be prepared by competent instruction, which comprehends all precepts of divine law, although sometimes instruction concerning certain mysteries, for example concerning the Eucharist, can prudently be postponed until after baptism; b) it supposes besides penance. Therefore the one to be baptized is to be admonished that he be sorry for his sins (c. 752, §1), and helped so that he have at least true attrition.

Nor will attrition itself with the connected purpose be had without sincere conversion, that is, unless he asks baptism with a right end, embraces the positive obligations of the Christian religion, and is moved by such a will as does not expose the sacrament to danger of profanation by apostasy or enormous and scandalous crimes of this kind. Therefore regularly a certain probation in faith and morals will be demanded, which, where there have been special difficulties, for example in time of persecutions, of itself must be greater and longer.

For similar reasons it sometimes happens that reception itself into the Catholic Church is prudently deferred for a minor by birth whom, if converted, grave vexations await, besides some hatred of the Catholic Church.

— V. On the Adult Placed in Danger of Death. 1. The burden of complete instruction is lightened as much as necessity demands. Wherefore, "if he cannot be more diligently instructed in the chief mysteries of faith, it is enough, for conferring baptism, that he in some way show that he assents to the same, and seriously promise that he will observe the commands of the Christian religion" (c. 752, §2). Concerning certain obligations in which good faith covers defect, one will be able prudently to be silent, always guarding against scandal.

2. He who cannot formally ask baptism, "but either previously or in the present state has manifested in some probable way the intention of receiving it, is to be baptized under condition; if then he becomes well and doubt remains concerning the value of the conferred baptism, baptism is again to be conferred under condition" (c. 752, §3).

Therefore a conjecture in some way probable that he is not baptized and that he wishes to be baptized creates the obligation of baptizing such a dying person. But a conjecture of the will of baptism can easily be had concerning him who has heard of the Christian religion. Indeed "a soul contrary to Christianity, by which before he was trying to shake off the goads of grace... can be both a reason for thinking that the dying person placed in danger has changed his mind, and now desires faith and baptism" (Lehmkuhl, II, 78, ed. 9). Wherefore, in our regions, any dying person, destitute of the senses and not yet baptized, can at least be baptized under the condition, "if you are capable."

Moreover, in great cities there are now so many who are not given baptism, even if they are born of baptized persons, that certain baptism can no longer be gathered from conversation among the faithful alone. Therefore it will be better to baptize conditionally, before absolution itself, an unknown dying person who is destitute of the senses.

A few think that in every attrition or will of saving the soul, which itself is not without knowledge of God as punisher of evils and rewarder of goods, a sufficient will of baptism is already contained. Wherefore, with the supreme necessity of baptism attended to, there seems to be no dying person destitute of the senses, whether in a faithful region or in an infidel region, who, with scandal set aside, cannot be baptized under condition. Cf. Cappello, op. c., I, n. 159.

Of itself indeed baptism, if it can, must be conferred upon many at the same time. The law of charity has this. Yet because most grave authors, such as Suarez, De Sacramentis, p. 1, d. 24, s. 1, n. 5, and Lugo, De Sacramentis in genere, d. 9, n. 129, deny that baptism can be conferred on others, the obligation will be only of baptizing those who, from c. 752, §3, have manifested in some probable way the formal intention of receiving baptism.⁽¹⁾

⁽¹⁾ Observe that it will more certainly profit an infidel who is mentally competent to elicit a perfect act of love of God and contrition, unless he expressly admits baptism.

— You will ask which certainly or doubtfully insane or doubtfully adult persons are to be baptized?

1. The insane from infancy, constituted in whatever age, are assimilated to infants (c. 745, §2, 1°). Wherefore they are always validly baptized; and licitly also, if, after the use of reason has been obtained, there will be founded hope of Christian instruction; or insanity is prudently foreseen as perpetual, or necessity of baptism urges.

2. Those who have lucid intervals, while they are of sound mind, are to be baptized if they wish (c. 754, §2).

3. Those who after the use of reason have fallen into insanity which is judged perpetual are to be baptized absolutely or conditionally, if some will of baptism, certainly or doubtfully sufficient, can in some way be conjectured while they enjoyed reason. Because of what was said just now, n. 242, we also do not oppose the conditioned baptism of others. If the insanity is not foreseen as going to be perpetual, lucid intervals are to be awaited, unless danger of death is imminent (c. 754, §3).

4. "He who labors under lethargy or frenzy is to be baptized only when awake and willing; but if danger of death is impending," he is to be baptized if before he has shown some desire of receiving baptism (c. 754, §4). And as far as we are concerned it is lawful to wash the others in that peril conditionally.

5. The baptism of one doubtfully insane is of itself to be deferred until lucid intervals or better developed reason have removed the doubt. But if waiting has been impossible or useless, he will have to be washed under condition, or even absolutely if, according to his measure, he is judged to have instruction and will of baptism. But if use of reason preceded, and then he had no will of baptism, some probable conjecture of present will toward baptism seems to be required.

6. One doubtfully adult is to be treated as one doubtfully insane. Of itself, therefore, his baptism is to be deferred. Yet if he already wishes to be baptized, as opportunity will prudently be given, he is to be separated from pagan parents who would create danger of perversion. Yet graver inconveniences, especially of public order, are to be avoided.

Yet if his Catholic instruction is morally certain, we do not see why the baptism of one doubtfully adult who according to his measure desires to be baptized should have to be deferred. Suppose converted pagan parents wish to be baptized with their whole offspring. Neither to adult offspring who consent, nor to children before the use of reason, will baptism be denied; why should it be denied to those doubtfully adult who ask baptism in the way in which they can?

— VI. On the Doubtfully Baptized. 1. Baptism is to be conferred once; and he sins gravely, by the sin of sacrilege, who confers or receives baptism again. Nevertheless the irregularity by which sacrilegious repetition of baptism, in the recipient and in the public rebaptizer, was formerly punished has been removed by the Code. Cf. Lehmkuhl, II, 1283.

2. But the extreme necessity of baptism permits that baptism be repeated under the condition, "if you are not baptized," if some doubt, yet reasonable, is had concerning the prior baptism.

Often, when the prior conferral, perhaps invalid, is certain, conditioned repetition is to be performed secretly or with witnesses removed, for avoiding scandals or offenses.

Wherefore "exposed and found infants, unless, the matter having been diligently investigated, their baptism is certain, are to be baptized under condition" (c. 749). But a note in which baptism is affirmed by no means furnishes sufficient security.

It is not lawful promiscuously to rebaptize under condition infants baptized by heretics or those converted from heresy, but, according to the account of times and places, an examination concerning the value of baptism is to be instituted; and this rather by weighing individual cases than by using presumptions (Holy Office, November 20, 1878). Nevertheless, if an examination cannot be made, baptism is to be repeated under condition; for because infidelity, or even among non-Catholics of good faith, negligence grows more day by day, baptism conferred by a non-Catholic is, practically, at least regularly to be repeated "unless there is brought forward a witness worthy of all faith who can testify point by point concerning baptism rightly performed." Thus almost Lehmkuhl, II, 27 note, alleging besides the response of the Holy Office, February 4, 1885, to the Visitor of the Copts.

Much less are they to be rebaptized promiscuously who, in necessity, were baptized by a physician, midwife, or pious layman. Yet because the probity or the very skill of a midwife is not always certain, nor rarely is baptism then conferred with the mind disturbed, for example by cares to be given to the endangered mother, there will easily be place for repeating baptism conditionally unless, after interrogation has been made concerning the way in which baptism was conferred, reasonable doubt is removed. But the interrogation is to be made in such a way that the manner in which the baptism was done is described. Wherefore even in certain missions it has been established that those baptized by catechists should regularly be baptized again under condition, unless two witnesses could testify to legitimate conferral. The Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide itself, September 8, 1869, extended to all vicariates of the Indies a decree of this kind of the Synod of Pondicherry (Collectio Lacensis, VI, 670, appendix). Nor can we disapprove that something similar be decreed concerning baptisms conferred by a midwife.

— By canon 753, §1, the Code warns that it is fitting that healthy adults to be baptized and he who is about to baptize them be fasting. This prescription of the Ritual seems to be referred to the more ancient obligation, which long remained, of conferring the sacraments before every eating or drinking.

Almost up to the seventeenth century fasting was imposed on those receiving and those ministering baptism. Cf. Martene, De antiquis Ecclesiae usibus, t. 1, p. 10.

Besides, the same canon, §2, demands that, unless grave and urgent causes stand in the way, an adult baptized should immediately assist at the sacrifice of the Mass and receive holy communion. Thus, by the rite itself, it is shown how the sacrament of baptism has an order toward receiving the Eucharist. Cf. St. Thomas, 3 p., q. 65, art. 3, c.

We understand this in such a way that of itself it is indeed fitting that the ceremony of baptism of adults be completed by the sacrifice of the Mass and holy communion; nevertheless urgent excuses are not required unless each is deferred for a long time. For the word immediately in law permits an interval of two or three days. Besides, the fasting itself necessary for communion is not properly prescribed. Therefore the usage will not be disapproved of baptizing adults in the evening who on the following day assist at Mass and are refreshed by the sacred banquet.

— I. The capable and of itself licit subject of baptism is every and only wayfaring man, not yet baptized and, if he has been an adult, consenting.

1. Danger lest the fetus be brought forth dead permits that baptism be attempted in the womb, to be repeated after birth under condition. When a pregnant mother has died, the extracted fetus is to be baptized absolutely or under condition, if he certainly or doubtfully lives. That an infant be baptized, Caesarean section is licit even with grave danger of death; and if the necessity is met sufficiently certainly in this way alone, it is objectively prescribed. Yet admonition is to be made prudently.

2. All abortive fetuses, which are not certain to be dead, are to be baptized at least under condition. In a monster, one can doubt concerning the unity rather than concerning the truth of the subject. Wherefore whatever is brought forth from a woman not certainly dead must be baptized at least under condition.

II. 1. That outside danger of death an infant before use of reason be licitly baptized, it is necessary that, without injury to the parents, grave danger of perversion can probably be removed. Wherefore the infants of infidels are not to be baptized when parents are unwilling; and generally the same norm is to be observed concerning the infants of heretics, schismatics, or apostates.

When he is in that peril of life such that he is prudently foreseen likely to die before use of reason, even with parents unwilling an infant is licitly baptized. And he is to be baptized unless a prevailing common detriment stands in the way.

2. Licit baptism of an adult demands faith and penance. Wherefore the baptism of one not dying is regularly to be prepared by competent instruction and fitting probation in faith and morals. In danger of death, it is enough that the dying person in some way show that he assents to the truths of faith, and seriously promise that he will observe the commands. And concerning certain obligations one will then be able prudently to be silent.

He is to be baptized under condition who cannot formally ask baptism but has in some probable way, before or now, manifested the intention of baptism. Nor does there seem to be any dying person destitute of the senses who, with scandal set aside, cannot be baptized under condition.

3. The insane from infancy are assimilated to infants. And cf. what was said above in the treatise on the Sacraments in general.

One doubtfully adult is to be treated as one doubtfully insane.

III. The extreme necessity of baptism permits that under condition, "if you are not baptized," baptism be repeated, if some doubt, yet reasonable, is had concerning the prior baptism.

Of itself indeed inquiry concerning those baptized in heresy is to be made; but if this cannot be done, baptism is to be repeated under condition.

— 1. Of itself, the ceremonies of baptism determine the rite to which one will belong (c. 98).

Yet offspring must be baptized in the rite of the parents. If the parents belong to different rites, the offspring, with special law saved, is to be baptized in the rite of the father. If only one parent was Catholic, he is to be baptized in this one's rite (c. 756).

2. The ceremonies are to be taken from an approved ritual, and therefore, in the Latin Church, from the Roman Ritual. And the rites, in grave matter, are to be observed under grave sin.

Notable ceremonies are: in solemn baptism, use of water blessed for this, which seems prescribed under grave sin (c. 757), saliva, salt, breathing, anointing with chrism, and indeed recent chrism if it is at hand, and a sponsor.

When a grave cause impedes all from being used, let at least those be observed which, in the case, can be observed. Those omitted will have to be supplied in the Church when opportunity is given. Nevertheless in baptism which is conferred at home because of imminent danger of death, the ceremonies which precede baptism are omitted; only the ceremonies which follow baptism, if time is present, are observed (c. 759, §1).

3. Some ceremonies are prescribed for the baptism of infants, others for the baptism of adults. But because of a grave and reasonable cause, the local Ordinary can now indulge that adults be baptized with the ceremonies of infants, which are shorter and simpler.

The reason can be sought from the aversion of the one to be baptized from longer ceremonies, from other business to which the minister must attend, or from too great a number of those to be baptized. Wherefore an Ordinary of missions who knows his missionaries to be stretched by many cares seems able simply to permit them, in his territory, the use of the ceremonies of infants.

4. When an infant baptized by a heretical minister is brought to the Catholic Church, the ceremonies of the baptism of children are to be used, whether baptism under condition must be repeated or not. - But if an adult is converted from heresy, the ceremonies can laudably be supplied but need not be, unless baptism must be repeated under condition; in that case, by common law, with dispensation of the Ordinary saved, the ceremonies of adult baptism are to be used.

Nevertheless it is lawful for the local Ordinary to permit that this conditioned baptism of a converted heretic be done without ceremonies (c. 759, §2).

When baptism is repeated conditionally, the ceremonies which were omitted in the prior baptism must be supplied, with the exception just mentioned saved; but if the prior baptism was conferred solemnly with all ceremonies, the ceremonies in the second can be repeated or omitted.

5. Observe that the thumb is to be used for applying saliva; but the eucharistic fast is not broken by salt tasted by catechumens. When the hair of the person to be baptized is too thick, some anoint with chrism the upper forehead, or the part of the head near the hairline; others take care that some part on the crown be shaved; others separate the hair, content if a very little chrism touches the head. The Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide, January 14, 1806, disapproved none of these.

6. "Let pastors take care that a Christian name be imposed on him who is baptized; but if they cannot obtain this, let them add to the name imposed by the parents the name of some saint, and in the book of the baptized let them write down both names" (c. 761).

Both names are to be written down so that the person can always be certainly recognized.

7. Interrogations to sponsors are to be uttered in the Latin language, but, if there is need, let them be repeated in the vernacular language which the godfathers and godmothers can use in their responses. And while the priest recites in Latin the Our Father, Hail Mary, and Creed, the sponsors will be able to recite the same at the same time in the vernacular tongue.

8. Except in imminent danger of death, the sacrament is not of itself to be separated from the solemnities. Wherefore as an abuse to be eliminated there has been reproved the custom of certain regions always of washing infants, ondoyer, with essential baptism, so that afterward in the Church the ceremonies alone may be supplied.

Where the abuse has been general, it belongs of itself to the Ordinary to determine beforehand the mode by which it is to be eliminated; but individual priests can accommodate themselves to the instructions of the Ordinary; and of itself it is to be wished that they know how to dissuade from the practice in such a way that they do not contradict the Ordinary.

— Place. 1. Solemn baptism is, under grave precept, of itself to be conferred in a church or in the adjoining baptistery (c. 773). Wherefore, if the parochial church is too distant, but another church or another public oratory is nearer, baptism is to be conferred in this sacred place (c. 775).

But by c. 774, §1, it is now established that, any contrary custom or law being reproved, indeed every contrary privilege revoked, any parochial church whatever is to have a baptismal font, "with the legitimate right already cumulatively acquired by other churches nevertheless saved," or which they will have acquired thereafter from episcopal ordinance.

2. Nevertheless in private houses, solemn baptism can be administered to the children or grandchildren "of those who actually hold supreme rulership of peoples or have the right of succeeding to the throne, as often as they have duly requested it"; and, from a just and reasonable cause, in some extraordinary case, also to others, if the local Ordinary has judged it to be conceded (c. 776).

From the very ordinary use of the word, nepos can be taken both for the son of a brother and for the son of one's own son.

It is also manifest that in regions of missions or in places where churches are lacking, solemn baptism can and must be administered outside the church by a competent minister.

— Baptism, whether private or solemn, can be administered on any day.

How quickly? "Let infants be baptized as soon as possible; and let pastors and preachers frequently remind the faithful concerning this grave obligation of theirs" (c. 770).

From the nature of the thing, a delay which brings in danger of dying without baptism is grave; and, with custom and the prescription of positive law attended to, many judge that a delay is grave which, without cause, is protracted beyond a month, or, with cause, beyond two months. Certainly a bishop can command that baptism not be deferred beyond eight days.

R. P. Cappello, op. c., I, n. 19, seems to speak too severely here.

Adults themselves also are of themselves to be baptized as soon as this can be done worthily and conveniently, since baptism is the gate of the Church, and the Church is a necessary society. Yet because of notable temporal harm it will be able prudently to be postponed. And c. 772 itself advises that, "according to the most ancient rite of the Church," the baptism of adults, if it can conveniently be done, especially in metropolitan or cathedral churches, be reserved to be done on the vigil of Easter and of Pentecost.

— Delegation of Faculties. The various faculties which we have recalled as made by law to Ordinaries can prudently be delegated by them to others, from general principles. For they pertain to their ordinary power.

— Notion of Sponsor. To him who is reborn in this sacrament of baptism there is given, as though another spiritual father, a godfather or godmother. Therefore these contract, of themselves, a grave obligation, after the parents and during the spiritual infancy of him whom they have taken from the font, that is, until he has been sufficiently instructed in Christian faith and morals, of procuring, by themselves or through others, insofar as they can, his Christian instruction, "so that in his whole life he may show himself such as they promised by solemn ceremony that he would be." Nor does spiritual solicitude cease after instruction has been finished. For "it belongs to sponsors, from the function undertaken, to have their spiritual child perpetually commended to themselves" (c. 769).

The guilt of sponsors is grave if, when they themselves can provide, the child is left destitute of spiritual aids.

But because they are bound secondarily, if the child is raised among Catholics who care for religion, they can presume the sufficient care and diligence of the parents.

We divide this treatise into seven chapters: 1. on the notion, institution, and division of baptism; 2. on its essence; 3. on its effects; 4. on its necessity; 5. on its minister; 6. on its subject; 7. on its ceremonies.

The same authors who were cited above, n. 2, concerning the sacraments in general can be consulted. Pourrat, however, does not treat the sacraments in particular.

1447. Baptism is placed first among the Sacraments, and not without cause; for it is first, not indeed in dignity, but in necessity and order of reception.

We shall discuss: 1. the nature of Baptism; 2. its minister; 3. the subject; 4. the ceremonies of solemn Baptism.⁴

We must treat: 1. of the notion, efficacy, and necessity of Baptism; 2. of the matter and form by which it is constituted.

1448. DEFINITION. Baptism is derived from the Greek verb βαπτίζω, that is, I wash, dip, immerse, and it is customarily distinguished as threefold, namely, of blood, of spirit, and of water.

1. Baptism of blood is the pouring out of blood, or death endured for the faith, or for another Christian virtue. 2. Baptism OF SPIRIT, or of desire, is perfect conversion to God through contrition, or love of God above all things, with the explicit or implicit vow of true Baptism of water. 3. Baptism OF WATER is the Sacrament itself, concerning which we must now treat.

It is defined: A Sacrament of the New Law instituted by Christ, for spiritual regeneration, through external washing of the body, under the prescribed form of words.

1449. Principles. I. It is of faith that BAPTISM is a true Sacrament of the New Law. The reason is that the three requisites for a true Sacrament concur in it: 1. a sensible rite, namely washing with water and the express invocation of the Most Holy Trinity. 2. The institution of Christ, as is proved from Matthew 28:19. More probably, it was instituted before His Passion, namely at the time when He Himself was baptized by John; whence it is said, John 3:22: "Jesus came ... and baptized," namely through the disciples, as is established from chapter 4:2: "although Jesus Himself did not baptize." 3. The conferral of grace, from divine institution: "Unless anyone shall have been born again, etc." (John 3:3).

1450. II. The EFFECTS of the Sacrament of Baptism are: 1. Remission of all guilt, original and personal, which it finds in the soul; whence Trent (sess. 5, can. 5): "In those reborn God hates nothing" (see, with respect to adults, n. 1475). 2. The condonation of all punishment, eternal namely and temporal, so that absolutely nothing delays the baptized from entrance into heaven, as the same Council of Trent has (ibid.); and hence no penance, at least laborious and satisfactory, ought to be imposed on baptized adults, from the Council of Florence.⁵ 3. The bestowal of sanctifying grace, by which we are made sons of God and heirs of heaven; and at the same time the infusion of the gifts of the Holy Spirit and of all virtues, both theological and moral, as the Roman Catechism has. Moreover, in view of the same grace, actual graces accommodated to the end of Baptism are conferred in their own time, namely for living holily and Christianly, as befits adoptive sons of God. 4. The impression of character, which is as it were the seal of Christ, a sign of eminent dignity, by which the baptized person is consecrated to God and bound forever to His service.⁶ 5. Co-optation into the company of the faithful, by which namely the baptized person becomes a member of the Church and is subjected to her authority.⁷

"Yet there remains in the baptized the tinder of sin, which is not sin, and if it is resisted, it will profit unto the crown."⁸ There remain also the penalities of this life, for example pains, death, etc., both so that we may be conformed to Christ, and because God, in raising man up, did not will that he put away the traces of his fall.⁹

1451. III. Baptism, after the sufficient promulgation of the Gospel, IS NECESSARY for all unto salvation, by necessity of means, unless the vow of the Sacrament or martyrdom supplies its place. It is of faith, from Trent, defining thus: "If anyone shall say that Baptism is free, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema."¹⁰ Declaring this necessity, it teaches that the translation of man from the state of original sin into the state of grace, after the Gospel has been promulgated, cannot be done without the laver of regeneration or its vow, from that which is written (John 3:5): "Unless anyone shall have been born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."¹¹

From these things it follows: 1. that any adult, as soon as he has been sufficiently instructed, is held, and indeed by divine law, to receive Baptism, and through this to enter the Church of Christ and profess her faith. 2. That little children, since they are incapable of a vow or desire, cannot be saved, outside the cause of martyrdom, except through Baptism in reality;¹² whence St. Augustine: "Do not say, do not teach, that infants overtaken by death before they are baptized can arrive at indulgence of original sins, if you wish to be Catholic."¹³ 3. That those sin gravely who, without an urgent cause, notably delay the Baptism of an infant. But a notable delay, more commonly and more probably, is judged to be that which would run beyond 10 or 11 days.¹⁴ Hence several Synods threaten the penalty of excommunication to parents who through negligence prolong Baptism beyond the eighth day.¹⁵

1452. Questions. Q. 1. How does Baptism OF SPIRIT and OF BLOOD supply the place of the Sacrament?

Resp. 1. Baptism OF SPIRIT supplies from the work of the worker, inasmuch namely as man, the divine Spirit breathing upon him, is justified by force of charity with respect to original sin, but by force of perfect contrition with respect to actual sins of which he is conscious. Nor, for producing these effects, is it required that the vow of Baptism be explicit, but there suffices, at least in him who is ignorant of the law of Baptism, or does not advert to it, an implicit vow, such namely as is included in the disposition of doing all things whatsoever have been enjoined by God. Thus St. Alphonsus¹⁶ with St. Thomas.¹⁷ Yet this baptism does not impress a character, nor confer a right to the other Sacraments; nor does it remit all temporal punishment, unless perhaps charity is so intense that it merits relaxation of every punishment (cf. n. 1674).

Resp. 2. Baptism OF BLOOD OR MARTYRDOM is equated with true Baptism, because quasi from the work worked, after the manner of true Baptism, it remits every guilt and punishment. It is said quasi, because it does not operate so strictly as the Sacrament, but from a certain privilege by reason of imitation of the passion of Christ.¹⁸ Therefore martyrdom profits even infants. The practice of the Church confirms this, for she honors as Saints and true martyrs both the holy Innocents slain for Christ and those witnesses of the faith who were slaughtered without having perceived Baptism of water.¹⁹

Q. 2. What is required that martyrdom be true and produce the aforesaid effects?

Resp. 1. There is required the suffering of death, or of lethal torment, or of such evils as by their own nature lead to death, even if someone miraculously escapes from them, as Benedict XIV affirms according to the common doctrine of theologians.²⁰

2. A pious cause is required; because "punishment does not make martyrs, but the cause," says St. Augustine.²¹ Whence it is necessary that violent death be sustained for the profession of faith, as is established from Luke 9:26; 12:8; or for the exercise of some other Christian virtue, because the works of all virtues are certain protestations of faith, as the Angelic Doctor says.²² Indeed, as true martyrs, more probably, those are to be held who, in service to those suffering plague, die from charity; and St. Alphonsus affirms that for this opinion stand 12 Academies, 13 Cardinals, and more than 300 authors against Hurtado and others.²³

3. In adults there are required certain positive dispositions, which are: 1. acceptance of death, at least habitual, from a supernatural motive, as is commonly held against some; because death, that it be meritorious, must be in some way voluntary in those who are capable of voluntary acts. Whence there must be absent the will to defend oneself, as also the rash exposure of one's own life; and therefore soldiers who are killed in a war of religion are probably not true martyrs, because they defend themselves. 2. Supernatural sorrow for sins; otherwise these are not remitted.

But whether perfect charity is required is indeed denied by some; but more probably it is affirmed by others with St. Alphonsus,²⁴ both from 1 Corinthians 13:3 and because martyrdom does not necessarily import perfect charity, namely when someone from fear of hell prefers to die rather than to sin. St. Thomas seems to agree, when he says: "The outpouring of blood does not have the notion of baptism, if it is without charity."²⁵ From this it is clear that baptism of spirit is included in baptism of blood, but not vice versa.

The remote matter of Baptism is water; but the proximate matter is the washing itself.

1453. Principles. I. The VALID matter of Baptism is natural or elemental water. It is of faith, as is established from the Councils, especially from Trent, sess. 7, can. 2, on Baptism: "If anyone shall say that true and natural water is not of the necessity of Baptism, and therefore shall twist to some metaphor the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Unless anyone shall have been born again of water and the Holy Spirit: let him be anathema."

Hence: 1. Matter certainly valid is: 1. water of springs, wells, the sea, rivers, lakes, ponds, cisterns, and rainwater; and thus any simple and pure water which retains the proper species of water; nor does it matter whether it is cold or warm, from the Roman Ritual; 2. water resolved from snow, ice, and hail; 3. sulphurous or mineral water; 4. water flowing in stormy weather from a wall, leaves, etc.; 5. turbid water mixed with another thing, provided water is the predominant matter; 6. dew, and water collected from condensed vapors, for example on the lid of a pot; 7. water simply distilled, roses or other leaves having been infused in the water.²⁶

2. Matter certainly invalid is: 1. blood, milk, wine, urine, phlegm, saliva, sweat, tears; 2. juice expressed from flowers, herbs, and roots.¹

3. Doubtful matter is: 1. broth and lye; 2. water from dissolved salt; 3. thin beer, thin ink, water flowing from a vine or other trees, and ice or snow not melted; 4. water drawn out by chemical art from flowers, plants, roots, wine, or oil; 5. one or another drop of water.²

1454. II. The LICIT matter of Baptism is clean water alone, and in solemn Baptism it must moreover be consecrated. The reason is that this is required both from the prescription of the Church and on account of reverence for the Sacrament.³

Hence: 1. He commits sacrilege who without necessity uses impure, turbid, or muddy water, although natural. 2. He sins gravely against the precept of the Church who does not use consecrated water in solemn Baptism. 3. If the consecrated water has been corrupted, natural water is to be preferred; but if time is sufficient, new water should be consecrated by the brief formula, as is contained in the Ritual. Thus from the Response of the Holy Office, April 17, 1839.⁴ 4. In private Baptism, unconsecrated water is probably licit; nevertheless care must be taken that at least blessed or lustral water be employed, for greater decency.⁵

1455. III. In cases OF NECESSITY, when certainly valid matter is lacking, doubtful matter is to be employed, but with this CONDITION added: "If this matter is sufficient"; for then even a slight probability concerning the value of the matter suffices (see nn. 82 and 1407). But if one so baptized survives, once a supply of matter certainly valid has been had, he must again be baptized under this condition: "If thou art not baptized, I baptize thee, etc."⁶

1456. Principles. I. For the validity of Baptism there is required a true WASHING of the body through water: that is, such an application of water as, in moral estimation, is necessary that a man be said truly washed or bathed.⁷

Whence there is required: 1. That water immediately touch the body of the one to be baptized. Therefore Baptism is invalid if, the child not yet having been born, the body of the mother is washed; likewise, if the water touches only the garments of the one to be baptized; but doubtful, if only his hair, or the afterbirth. 2. That it be done on the head, as is becoming, because in it all the senses flourish, or at least, as is very commonly taught, on another notable part of the body, for example on the shoulders or on the breast. Whence, if from necessity Baptism has been conferred on a less notable part, for example on the hand, fingers, or foot, it must altogether be repeated under condition; nay more, the same seems to be done for caution, even if Baptism has been conferred on a notable part; "because, from St. Thomas,⁸ in none of the exterior parts does the integrity of life consist as in the head." 3. That the contact of water be successive, namely in such a way that either water is applied successively to the body, or the body to water. Hence Baptism would be doubtful if the one to be baptized were thrown into water from which he did not emerge. 4. That there be a quantity of water truly sufficient for washing: therefore he would validly baptize who would put the one to be baptized under water flowing from a roof and would pronounce the form; but, according to the common opinion, he would not validly baptize if he touched the body of the one to be baptized with only one or another drop. Baptism conferred thus, especially if the drop has not flowed, would be altogether doubtful. Yet if the one baptizing, by motion of a moistened finger, were to wash a part of the body of the one to be baptized, authors commonly hold such Baptism as certain, although not a few still doubt concerning its validity.⁹

For validity it makes no difference whether the washing is done by immersion, or by sprinkling, provided water flows; whether by threefold or single infusion.¹⁰

1457. II. With respect to LICEITY, the manner of washing which is used in individual Churches must be observed, and indeed generally under grave obligation. The Greeks indeed retain threefold immersion, which they can also employ while they stay among Latins, as is established from Benedict XIV's Constitution Etsi pastoralis. But the ROMAN RITUAL has these things: "The priest takes baptismal water with a small vessel or pitcher, and from it pours three times over the head of the infant in the manner of a cross, and at the same time pronouncing the words, says distinctly and attentively only once: N... I baptize thee in the name of the Father, he pours the first time; and of the Son, he pours the second time; and of the Holy Spirit, he pours the third time." But where there is the custom of baptizing by IMMERSION, for example in the Milanese Church, the priest receives the infant, and taking care lest he be injured, cautiously immerses his head, and baptizes by threefold immersion, saying only once: N... I baptize thee, etc.¹¹

The threefold washing, outside the case of necessity, from the truer opinion, is prescribed under grave obligation; because a rite of this kind is sufficiently grave matter: for in it the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is expressed. And it must be noticed that the form is not to be ended before the third washing.¹²

1458. I. The valid and legitimate FORM of Baptism in the Latin Church is: I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.¹³

Thus the Council of Trent defined according to the words of the Lord Himself (Matthew 28:19): "Going therefore teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." Among the Greeks it is equivalently said: The servant of Christ is baptized in the name of the Father, etc. This form is valid from the Instruction of Eugene IV to the Armenians; but it is licit only in the Greek Church.¹⁴

1459. II. That, in a variation of the form, the validity of Baptism may be discerned from invalidity, attention must be paid to whether the substance of the sense remains or not. Now, the substance requires that there be expressed: 1. the person baptizing, at least in the act exercised; 2. the person baptized; 3. the action of the one baptizing; 4. the invocation of the Most Holy Trinity expressing both the unity of the divine nature and the distinction of the Persons, and more probably with the proper words.¹⁵

Hence it follows: 1. The form is VALID per se, although illicit at least venially, if a Latin uses the words of the Greeks; if the language is changed, although it is better for lay persons, especially women, to use the vernacular tongue, to avoid the danger of erring; if synonymous words are substituted, for example "I bathe thee, wash, dip, etc."; if the words are corrupted at the end, because Pope Zacharias declared valid this form employed from ignorance of the Latin tongue: "I baptize thee in the name of the Fatherland, and Daughter, and Holy Spirita"; likewise, if the word I is omitted, because the sense is still rendered sufficiently, though otherwise in a vernacular tongue, for example in French, English, German; or the conjunction and, provided it is set before the third Person; likewise if one says "with the name of the Father, etc.," from the decision of the S. C. C., May 24, 1823.¹⁶ The form is also valid if words not corrupting the sense are added, for example if someone should say: "In the name of the almighty Father" or "who created thee, etc."; or if transpositions are made: "In the name of the Son and of the Father, etc."; because the name of Father of itself sounds as being the principle of the Son, and therefore there the confession of the Most Holy Trinity is still right substantially; nor does it obstruct that the minister errs internally concerning the faith, because internal error does not prejudice the value of the Sacrament.¹⁷ We have said per se; because, as St. Thomas notices, if someone, by so changing the form, intended to introduce another rite, he would no longer intend to do what the Church does, and thus the Sacrament would be invalid.¹⁸

2. INVALID is this form: "I anoint thee in the name, etc.," or "I baptize in the name, etc."; because the word thee, or an equivalent, is of the essence.¹⁹ Likewise, if someone should say: "I baptize thee in Father and Son, etc.," or "with Father and Son, etc."; or "in the name of the Father through the Son"; or "in the names of the Father, etc."; because these and similar things either signify diversity of divine nature, or do not express its unity sufficiently. Likewise, if he should say: "In the name of the greater Father and of the lesser Son"; for thus the truth of the Sacrament would openly be taken away. Likewise, if someone were to use these words: "I baptize thee in the name of God," or "in the name of Christ." Nor do the things which are read in Acts 8:12 obstruct; because, according to the more probable opinion, there by the name of Christ is understood Baptism instituted by Christ, in distinction from the baptism of John.²⁰

3. DOUBTFUL is the form of Baptism: "In the name of the Most Holy Trinity," or "in the name of God one and triune," or "in the name of the three Persons"; indeed, according to several, it would certainly be invalid. Likewise Baptism conferred "In the name of the Begetter and of the Begotten and of the One Proceeding from both" must be held doubtful, from St. Thomas, because the common names must more probably be used. Likewise, if someone says: "In the name of the Father, in the name of the Son, etc."; because, although this repetition more probably does not change the sense, nevertheless the opposite opinion is not altogether improbable.²¹ Likewise, the omission of the word in introduces some doubt concerning value; and much more the total omission of the word and, if namely one says: In the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

But if someone should add the name of the Blessed Virgin Mary to the names of the three Persons, St. Thomas says²² that, if he did this with a heretical mind, intending to confer Baptism in the name of the Virgin as in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, it would be invalid; because the true confession of Divinity would be perverted. Otherwise, if some rustic should add the name of the Virgin only from intrusive devotion.

Note. The pastor must take care, says the ROMAN RITUAL, that the faithful, especially midwives, know and observe well the right rite of baptizing.²³

1460. Every man using reason validly baptizes, provided matter and form and the intention of the Church are observed.²⁴ It is of faith from the Decree of Eugene IV to the Armenians, and from the Fourth Lateran Council, cap. Firmiter.

With respect to LICEITY, several things must be distinguished; for, because Baptism can be conferred either solemnly, that is, with the rites prescribed by the Church, or privately, namely on account of a case of necessity, hence the minister is either the minister of solemnity or the minister of necessity. Then, in order to Baptism itself, the minister of solemnity is either ordinary or extraordinary, according as by force of his ordination he confers it; but in order to the one to be baptized, he is either the proper minister or a delegated minister, according as, from the disposition of ecclesiastical law, he confers it by proper right or by delegated right.

These things having been premised, we establish the following:

1461. Principles. I. The ORDINARY minister of solemn Baptism by divine law is the priest; by ecclesiastical law it is the Bishop in his diocese, and the pastor in his parish. The first is established from the Decree of Eugene IV, in which it is handed down: "The minister of this Sacrament of Baptism is the priest, to whom it belongs from office to baptize." The second is established from canon law and from the Roman Ritual; and the reason is that through Baptism each one is aggregated not only to the universal Church, but also to a particular one. But to aggregate to a particular Church belongs to him who presides over this Church. Yet the pastor cannot attribute this right to himself if in his church there does not exist a baptismal font, but the Provost of the church in which the baptistery is found; for he alone, from the prescription of the Roman Ritual, ought to confer Baptism.²⁵

It suffices, however, that the permission be tacit, or even presumed from a just and reasonable cause.¹

3. "Pilgrims or those who do not have domicile can be baptized in the church which they have chosen. But if a woman by chance gives birth in a village not her own, the offspring is to be baptized by the pastor of that village; nevertheless, if that village is little distant from her own village, for example by two or three hours, the offspring can also be baptized in her own church."²

4. Strangers, according to the more common and more probable opinion, can receive Baptism and the other Sacraments from the pastor of the place where they have already contracted quasi-domicile.³

Note. The Sacred Congregation DE PROPAGANDA FIDE, on January 21, 1789, decreed: "A suspended and interdicted priest can at no time administer Baptism with solemnities; but when because of urgent necessity he must baptize, let him baptize privately."⁴

1462. II. The EXTRAORDINARY minister of SOLEMN Baptism is a Deacon. This is established from canon law and from the Pontifical. But although a Deacon, by force of his ordination, can baptize solemnly, nevertheless he cannot do this licitly unless from the commission of the ordinary minister. Nor indeed can such commission be given at the will of the pastor or of the Bishop himself, but only on account of necessity, or on account of great utility of the Church: for example, if other priests are lacking and a multitude of those to be baptized is present; or if the pastor is gravely ill, or excommunicated, or otherwise occupied with hearing confessions or preaching. But if a deacon, without legitimate delegation, even in a case of necessity, baptizes solemnly, according to the very common opinion, he incurs irregularity; and clerics of a lower Order certainly incur this penalty;⁵ for these, that they may be able to baptize solemnly, are not sufficiently supplied in any case by the commission of the pastor or Bishop; but delegation of the Supreme Pontiff himself is required.⁶

1463. III. The legitimate minister of PRIVATE Baptism, in a case of NECESSITY, is any man using reason. For the Roman Ritual has thus: "Whenever an infant or adult is in danger of life, he can without solemnity be baptized by anyone in any language, whether cleric, or layman even excommunicated, whether faithful, or unbeliever, whether Catholic, or heretic, whether man, or woman, provided however that the form and intention of the Church are observed."

But the order to be observed among ministers is that which the RITUAL thus designates: "If a priest is present, let him be preferred to a deacon, a deacon to a subdeacon, a cleric to a layman, and a man to a woman; unless for the sake of modesty it is becoming that a woman rather than a man baptize an infant not wholly brought forth; or unless a woman knew better the form and manner of baptizing." Likewise, from the Ritual and from Canon Law, outside utmost necessity, neither the father nor the mother is permitted to baptize their own offspring. A stranger, if any is present, should baptize this offspring brought into danger of life. But a layman not excommunicated is to be placed before a priest who is excommunicated, since an excommunicated person is no longer numbered among the members of the Church.⁷ The Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, August 20, 1671, responded: "Let the Bishop not permit schismatics to administer the Sacrament of Baptism, except in a case of necessity, and when any other person whatsoever is lacking."⁸

From these things you resolve: 1. Anyone who omits to confer Baptism in a case of necessity sins gravely; because, as Tertullian says, "he is guilty of a lost man."⁹ But the principal SIGNS of danger for an infant are these: "if he is born without crying and tears; if he breathes moderately; if he appears livid, especially in face or head; if he is born after much labor of the midwife, or before the seventh month; if he has the cranium soft, or sutures too open, or other parts disjoined."¹⁰

2. Likewise a layman who, the order having been spurned, baptizes in the presence of a priest sins gravely, as also does the priest himself who, without a legitimate reason, yields his office of baptizing to a layman. In the other cases, inversion of the order of ministers is only a venial sin; which probably must also be said if a layman baptizes in the presence of a deacon not deputed by the pastor.¹¹

1464. Questions. Q. 1. Whether several can baptize ONE at the same time, or ONE several?

Resp. 1. If each of those baptizing intends to act independently of the other, as a particular and individual cause, Baptism is valid; because all requisites are present, as is clear from the similar case in Ordination, by which newly ordained priests consecrate together with the Bishop; and in such a case, he who first completes the form, he alone baptizes. But if one intends to act dependently on the other, as a common and simultaneous cause, Baptism is INVALID, whether he says: "I baptize thee," or says: "we baptize thee." For, as St. Thomas says,¹² "a man does not baptize except as minister of Christ and bearing His place. Whence, just as Christ is one, so there must be one minister who represents Christ." In each case one acts ILLICITLY, unless haste excuses.¹³

Resp. 2. Illicitly, outside a case of necessity, several are baptized at the same time by one; for the Ritual reprobates that form "I baptize you," directed to several at once, unless there is danger of death and time does not allow that individuals be baptized separately. "Yet they are validly baptized; because, by acting thus, the necessary form is not diversified, since the plural is the singular doubled."¹⁴

Q. 2. Whether someone can baptize HIMSELF?

Resp. He cannot, either licitly or validly; both because the person baptizing must be altogether diverse from the person baptized,¹⁵ and because Baptism is spiritual generation: now, no one can generate himself. But see what was said, n. 1452, q. 1.

1465. The SUBJECT capable of Baptism is every and only living man descending from Adam, not yet baptized. This is established from the words of Christ the Lord, who says indiscriminately of all: "Unless anyone shall have been born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (John 3:5).

Hence, validly and licitly baptized are: 1. infants, as was expressly defined by Trent (sess. 7, can. 13, on Baptism); 2. the perpetually insane, who have never used reason; because they are judged of the same condition as infants.¹⁶ Recall what was said, n. 1435.

These things having been premised in general, we must now treat specifically: 1. of infants to be baptized in the womb of the mother; 2. of abortive fetuses and monsters; 3. of the children of unbelievers or heretics; 4. of adults; 5. of the doubtfully baptized.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In ADULTS certain dispositions are required, both for the valid and for the licit reception of Baptism. Concerning this, hold these things:

1474. Principles. I. For the VALID reception of Baptism in adults there is REQUIRED and SUFFICES an intention at least habitual, that is, had and not retracted, of receiving Baptism (cf. n. 1434).

Hence it is inferred: 1. Baptism received from grave fear is valid. For since it is sufficiently voluntary, the Sacrament is received, although the thing or grace of the Sacrament is not received. 2. Likewise, Baptism conferred on one sleeping or insane is valid, if before, when in possession of himself, he asked for it, or in whom, as the Roman Ritual says, the desire of Baptism appeared.¹⁰

1475. II. For the LICIT and FRUITFUL reception of Baptism there are required in adults, besides intention, the DISPOSITIONS which the Council of Trent teaches are necessary for the justification of the impious (cf. n. 1644).

Hence you will deduce: 1. If some adult has already been justified beforehand through charity or contrition, nothing further is required in him except the will of receiving the Sacrament, by which character is impressed, the punishment of sin is remitted, and grace is increased (cf. n. 1450).

2. If he has not been justified, yet has only original sin, there is required and suffices in him explicit faith of the mysteries of faith which are to be believed by necessity of means, and implicit faith of the others which have been revealed by God; then hope of justification and eternal life, with the beginning of love, by which namely he begins to love God as the fountain of all justice, and proposes to himself to observe the divine commandments.

3. If he also has personal sins, there is moreover required supernatural sorrow for sins, according to that (Acts 2:38): "Do penance, and let each one of you be baptized"; and the reason is that actual sins cannot be destroyed without the retraction of the sinner. But the doctors more truly hand down that attrition suffices; for since Baptism has been instituted for destroying even actual sins committed before its reception, if it should pre-require contrition, which covers a multitude of sins, it would pre-require the effect for the producing of which it was instituted; therefore. Thus very commonly with St. Thomas, who says: "For this, that man prepare himself for grace to be perceived in Baptism, faith is pre-required, but not charity; because preceding attrition suffices, even if it is not contrition."¹¹

The ROMAN RITUAL admonishes: "1. If some adult is to be baptized, he ought first, according to the apostolic rule, to be diligently instructed in the Christian faith and holy morals, and for some days to be exercised in works of piety, and his will and purpose are to be explored more often, and he is to be baptized only knowing and willing, and well instructed."¹² In antiquity, diverse times had been prescribed for proving and instructing CATECHUMENS; now the whole matter is left to the judgment of the Bishop.¹³

2. For reverence of the Sacrament, it is fitting that both the one baptizing and those to be baptized who are healthy be fasting. Thus also the RITUAL.

1476. It is asked: Whether and when Baptism must be repeated UNDER CONDITION?

Resp. 1. There has always been in the Church the practice of baptizing, at least under a tacit condition, those concerning whom it was doubted whether by the laver of regeneration they had been expiated from original fault, as Benedict XIV proves at length against Natalis Alexander.¹⁴ But Alexander III established thus: "Concerning those of whom it is doubtful whether they have been baptized, let them be baptized with these words premised: If thou hast been baptized, I do not baptize thee; but, if thou hast not yet been baptized, I baptize thee, etc."¹⁵

2. "Baptism must be repeated under condition, not everywhere and without cause; but only then when a prudent and probable doubt underlies whether someone has been baptized, nor, diligent inquiry having first been made, could the truth of the matter become known," as the same Benedict XIV has.¹⁶ And this is to be observed under grave obligation, both in doubt of law, namely when it is established that baptism was conferred with doubtful matter, or form, or intention, or with one concerning whose value there is controversy; and in doubt of fact, when it is prudently doubted, whether positively or negatively, whether Baptism has been given or not: because in each doubt, the salvation of man is equally endangered. Hence the rule which the Fifth Council of Carthage hands down: "Whenever there are not found most certain witnesses who testify without doubt that they have been baptized, they are to be rebaptized without scruple."¹⁷

1477. From what has been said you will deduce:¹⁸ I. The following MUST be baptized under condition: 1. Exposed infants who are found without a certificate concerning Baptism. And the same must be thought with Benedict XIV, even if they carried on the neck testimony of Baptism, when the paper does not produce certainty, that is, when it is not discovered that the author of the paper is worthy of faith. Thus from the declaration of the S. C. C., December 18, 1723.¹⁹ 2. All those for whom no sign can be had of received Baptism, nor of the marriage of the parents. 3. Many heretics. But these are to be rebaptized, not because they have been baptized by heretics, but because heretics baptizing are not accustomed to fulfill the conditions which the Church prescribes. And St. Alphonsus asserts this by name concerning Lutherans and Calvinists, who, since they judge Baptism not to be absolutely necessary, care little for matter and form. "Some of them," he says, "use distilled waters; others are accustomed in baptizing to observe this custom, that one pronounces the form and another applies the matter; some pour water upon the garments only, and others more commonly fail in intention."²⁰

Note. 1. The Greek Schismatics, Eutychians, Nestorians, and other Oriental heretics are accustomed to confer Baptism accurately and VALIDLY; likewise the French Schismatics (petite Eglise), Old Catholics, and among Anglicans Ritualists. 2. Less accurately, and therefore DOUBTFULLY, Methodists and Presbyterians administer Baptism, who are accustomed to baptize by sprinkling; also Episcopalians, who especially today judge Baptism to be a bare rite without true efficacy; then finally Congregationalists, Unitarians, and Universalists, who consider Baptism as something free. 3. Baptists baptize adults only, and indeed doubtfully, because they pronounce the whole form before the immersion begins. Socinians and Quakers confer no baptism at all.²¹

Moreover, let it be noticed that Sects are changeable, and that today, in various places, they approach Rationalism more and more.

We must treat: 1° of the nature, properties, and necessity of Baptism; 2° of the matter and form; 3° of the Minister; 4° of the subject and accessory solemnities.

1249. - The word Baptism or Baptisma signifies the same as immersion and washing; hence Baptism is also called a washing, because it wipes away sins.

Baptism is defined: the Sacrament of regeneration through water in the word. Thus the Roman Catechism; or: It is the first Sacrament of the New Law, and the one most necessary, instituted by Christ for the spiritual regeneration of man.

From the Baptism of water, which is called fluminis, there is distinguished the Baptism flaminis and of blood, by which Baptism properly so called can be supplied, if this is impossible. The former is an ardent desire, at least implicit, of receiving Baptism of water with full conversion to God, namely with contrition or perfect charity. The latter is the shedding of blood, or death borne for the Faith, or for another Christian virtue, in adults probably with contrition or perfect charity. But only Baptism of water is properly called Baptism in reality. Baptism flaminis and of blood are called Baptisms in vow. Yet Baptism of blood is more excellent than Baptism flaminis, because 1° this latter does not always, as the former does, take away every debt of punishment, and because 2° the former produces its effect almost ex opere operato, i.e. although not so strictly as the Sacraments, nevertheless from a certain privilege by reason of the imitation of the Passion of Christ; for otherwise it would not have profited the Holy Innocents, whom nevertheless the Church honors as martyrs.¹ But only Baptism fluminis imprints character, and renders man capable of receiving the other Sacraments.

1250. - The principal effects of Baptism are numbered as three, namely: 1° remission of original sin and of actual sins, if there are any, through the infusion of sanctifying grace, to which is added the habit of all the virtues;² 2° total remission of eternal punishment and temporal punishment due for sins, but not liberation from the penalties of the present life, which nevertheless by virtue of Baptism will be taken away from the just in the Resurrection, when this mortal thing will put on immortality;³ 3° the impression of character, by which the baptized person is marked as a son of God and coheir of Christ, and is rendered incapable of receiving Baptism again. It is clear as regards the first from Trent, Session 5, in the Decree on original sin; as regards the second from Trent in the same place, and from the Council of Florence in the Decree for the Armenians; as regards the third, from the Council of Florence in the same place, and from Trent, Session 7, on Baptism.

Therefore Baptism is as the gate of the Church and of the kingdom of heaven. Hence if someone has not been validly baptized, he can validly receive no other Sacrament.

Baptism of water in reality or in vow, at least implicit, from divine institution is altogether necessary for salvation by necessity of means. It is clear from the words of Christ:⁴ Unless a man has been born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. - And from Trent.⁵

1251. Principles. - I. The valid matter of Baptism is natural water alone, or elementary water, apt for washing. It is of Faith. It is clear 1° from the words of Christ:¹ Unless a man has been born again of water, etc. - It is clear 2° from the Councils, especially from Florence in the Decree for the Armenians, and from Trent.² - "But what true and natural water is, although with the help of chemical analysis, confirmed by synthesis, it is sufficiently known to those skilled in natural science, nevertheless for theologians (on account especially of the difficulties which occur everywhere in defining the nature of mixtures) it seems that in place of a principle the admonition of the illustrious Author De re Sacrament. Tom. I. must rather be held, that concerning true and natural water judgment must be made from the common use of men, not from the disputes of philosophers."³ (W) p. 416.

II. The licit matter of Baptism, outside the case of necessity, is blessed or consecrated water alone, and mixed with chrism according to the rite of the Church, at least for solemn Baptism. This is clear from Canon Law (see below concerning the Ceremonies of Baptism). But he certainly sins gravely by the sin of sacrilege who without grave necessity uses impure, turbid, or foul water, although this is valid matter.⁴ (co) p. 401.

It is said: 1° outside the case of necessity, which case sometimes occurs in Missions. Concerning this the S. C. de P. F. wrote in 1806 to the Apostolic Vicar of Tonkin: "Where to preserve water blessed according to the prescribed rite would be of grave inconvenience or danger, in that case it will be lawful for Missionaries or anyone else who, according to the opportunity of things, is apt for conferring this Sacrament, to use common water, especially if it has been blessed,"⁵ for water of the baptismal font, which cannot be had except with grave inconvenience or danger.⁶

It is said: 2° according to the rite of the Church. - Concerning this, note that although water, as our Councils admonish,⁷ is to be blessed by the form in the Roman Ritual, if water thus blessed, because of the absence of a baptismal font in places where Baptisms are rare, is lacking, or has failed, or has been corrupted, it can also be blessed by that shorter formula which was approved for the use of our Missionaries by Pius VIII, and is found in the little book Excerpta ex Rit.,⁸ etc.

It is said: 3° impure, turbid, or foul water. - On this matter note the response of the S. C. Ing., Feria IV, 17 April 1839: "Baptisms conferred with" blessed "corrupted water were valid, although illicit outside the case of necessity; and in a case of necessity natural water is to be preferred; but provision must be made for the renewal of the water of the baptismal font, according to the Roman Ritual."⁹

III. In danger of death, if certainly valid matter cannot be had, doubtful matter ought to be used under this condition: If this matter is sufficient.... Then even a slight probability concerning the value of the matter suffices, because in necessity one must assist the neighbor in the best way in which it can be done. But if one baptized thus has survived, once there is availability of certainly valid matter, he ought to be baptized again under this condition: If thou art not baptized, I baptize thee, etc. - Common.

1252. Resolves. - 1° Valid matter is: 1) water of springs, wells, rivers, the sea, pools, marshes, lakes, cisterns; 2) water dissolved from ice, snow, or hail, because it preserves the same substance, although it has been accidentally changed as regards color, taste, or odor; 3) sulphurous or mineral water, water collected from vapor, dew, or flowing in stormy weather from a wall, leaves, etc.; 4) water simply distilled with roses or other flowers, yet not licit per se; 5) turbid water mixed with another substance, provided water is the truly and certainly predominant matter, so that according to the use or estimation of men it can still be called water.¹⁰

2° Invalid matter is: 1) milk, blood, tears, sweat, saliva, spittle, urine; 2) wine, oil, beer, thick broth from fat, etc.; 3) mud, ink. (2) p. 416.

3° Doubtful matter is: 1) very thin broth, lye, thin beer (water from dissolved salt?); 2) liquid flowing from a vine and other plants; 3) snow, ice, hoarfrost, and other similar things not yet dissolved,¹ coffee, tea.

1253. - The proximate matter of Baptism is ablution, which can be done in three ways, namely by immersion, sprinkling, and pouring, according to the practice of diverse Churches (which practice, namely of pouring among us, must be observed under grave obligation), so that by the moral judgment of men the baptized person is judged to have been washed. This is clear from the words of the form, and from the perpetual practice of the Church, and also from Paul, Eph.:¹ Cleansing by the laver of water in the word of life.

1254. Questions. - Query 1° Can a child in the womb of the mother validly be baptized?

Resp. Affirmatively, sufficiently probably, if the child in the womb is reached by water by means of some instrument; because, since the infant already exists as a wayfaring man, he can validly be baptized. It stands in the way that the child is still enveloped in the afterbirth, whose exterior membrane is part of the mother. But more recently an instrument has been invented by which the afterbirth is cut open; and thus water, another instrument being employed, can come to touch immediately the body itself of the fetus. Yet he is to be baptized under condition, because it is not certainly established whether Baptism conferred in this way is valid. Therefore, if the child "has put forth the head" from the womb "and danger of death is imminent," or if he is born, he is to be baptized again under condition. - "But if he has put forth another member which indicates vital motion, let him be baptized in that member if danger threatens; and then, if he is born alive, he will have to be baptized under condition."¹ - But the Baptism of one not yet perfectly born, for the sake of decency, is to be conferred by a lay person, and, unless others are lacking, not by a priest.

Query 2° Is Baptism valid if the water only touches the garments or hairs of the one to be baptized?

Resp. 1° If the water touches only the garments, Baptism is certainly invalid; because thus no one would say that the man is washed. 2° But it is probably valid if the water touches the hairs. But in practice the safer part is to be followed.¹ - Hence if the one to be baptized is covered with hair, let the priest either divide his hair with the fingers of the left hand while with the right he pours water, or let him baptize him on the forehead.

Query 3° Is Baptism valid when conferred in another part than on the head?

Resp. Affirmatively, probably, especially if Baptism is conferred on some more principal part, for example on the breast, shoulders, etc. Nevertheless, if necessity has compelled this, afterward, if it can be done, Baptism would have to be repeated under condition.² Cf. the things said in this number, Query 1°.

Query 4° Does one or another drop of water suffice for baptizing?

Resp. Negatively, probably, especially if the water does not flow, because it cannot be called ablution, which is altogether required for Baptism. - Thus commonly. Nevertheless it is probably doubtful matter, which in a case of necessity would have to be employed. But they commonly say that the matter is then certain if the one baptizing with the motion of a moistened finger should wash a part of the body.³ - But there is no doubt that it is certainly valid if water sprinkled in sufficient quantity truly flows down; since Baptism is validly conferred by sprinkling. (Q) p. 416.

Query 5° Is a threefold ablution required for Baptism?

Resp. 1° Certainly it is not required for validity; for one suffices, that someone be judged truly washed.

Resp. 2° But it is required for liceity, and indeed under grave obligation, where this threefold pouring of water is prescribed, as in the Roman Ritual.⁴ Yet these things seem to be understood of solemn Baptism.

1255. - The form of Baptism is: I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Thus the Council of Trent defined, according to that saying of Matthew:¹ Go therefore, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. But among the Greeks it is said: Let the servant of Christ be baptized in the name of the Father, etc.; or: The servant of Christ is baptized, etc. This form is valid from the instruction of Eugene IV to the Armenians; but it is licit only in the Greek Church.

Several theologians, among whom is St. Alphonsus (who nevertheless in the little work Instr. al popolo, P. II. C. II. n. 6, does not mention that word), judge that the omission of the word Amen at the end of the form of Baptism is venial; yet that word is not found in the Roman Ritual. Therefore it is asked whether it is to be used or omitted? Resp. S. C. Rit.: Let the Roman Ritual be strictly observed in the case (9 June 1853, Cochinchina, n. 5188).

This form can be vitiated in many ways, either accidentally or substantially, as was said above, n. 1212.

The omission of the word I in the form uttered in Latin, Italian, Spanish, but not in English, German, or French (since it would have the sense of the imperative), does not vitiate the essence of the form, nor would it exceed venial sin.² - The same seems to be said, at least probably, concerning the omission of the conjunction and, especially if it is omitted only once, and is placed before the third person. - The same also probably concerning the word in, although several grave theologians contradict this. Nevertheless the S. C. C. declared valid the form: "I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son, Holy Spirit." Likewise it has often declared valid the form: "I baptize thee with the name, etc.," uttered in good faith and with right intention.³ But the other words are altogether required for validity. - But it would be valid even if, in the plural number, the English you, the German Sie or Euch, the French vous, the Italian vi, were used, since by usage they also have the force of the singular number.

1256. Questions. - Query 1° Is the form of Baptism valid if it is said: I baptize thee in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, or in the name of Christ?

Resp. to the first: Negatively, at least probably, because in such a form the individual persons of the Holy Trinity are not expressed sufficiently distinctly; since the word Trinity signifies the persons only confusedly and implicitly; but Christ willed that they be expressed distinctly, as is clear from Matthew, the last chapter.⁴ - Thus commonly.⁵

Resp. to the second: Negatively, at least a fortiori, because the Trinity is in no way expressed by the words in the name of Christ. - Thus all, at least now after St. Thomas,⁶ and it is clear from Canon Law.⁷ St. Alphonsus proves this from Acts 19. 2.⁸

Query 2° Is Baptism valid if to the customary form there is added: and in the name of the Blessed Virgin Mary?

Resp. A distinction must be made. It is not valid if someone doing this intends to confer Baptism in the name of the Blessed Virgin, namely by attributing to such names true efficacy for the value of Baptism. - But otherwise, if he does it from importunate devotion.⁹

The Minister of Baptism is one thing when ordinary, another when extraordinary. Again the extraordinary Minister is twofold: namely the Minister of solemnity and of necessity.

1257. Principles. - I. Every priest, and only a priest, by force of his ordination, is the ordinary minister of Baptism. It is clear from various places of Canon Law and from the Council of Florence in the Decree of Union, and also from the universal practice of the Church.

II. A deacon is the extraordinary Minister and Minister of solemnity, i.e. able to baptize solemnly, but only from delegation and for a grave cause. It is clear from Canon Law and the Roman Pontifical, or from the instruction of the Bishop to Deacons in ordination, etc.

III. Any man whatsoever using reason, whether male or female, whether Catholic or heretic, whether believer or unbeliever, is an extraordinary Minister of Baptism, so that he can always baptize validly, and in necessity also licitly. It is drawn from the same sources and from what was said above in the first principle. - Hence "let priests take care that all the faithful, especially physicians, nurses, and midwives, rightly know the manner of conferring private Baptism."¹

IV. Although every priest, by force of ordination, has the power of baptizing, nevertheless he cannot licitly use it, even privately, outside the case of necessity, unless he has ordinary or delegated jurisdiction. It is clear from Canon Law and from the Roman Ritual on Baptism. (1) p. 416.

1258. Resolves. - 1° Neither a Pastor nor a Bishop, without commission, licitly baptizes outside his own diocese or parish, or, within it, persons belonging to others. And therefore parents also sin who without permission of their own Prelate bring their offspring to another to be baptized, since they violate the right of the Pastor.¹

2° Travelers, i.e. vagi, can be baptized in whatever Church they have chosen. If a woman by chance gives birth in a village not her own, the offspring is to be baptized by the Pastor of that village, unless perhaps the proper village is a little distant from there.²

3° According to the more common and more probable sentence,³ all can receive Baptism and the other Sacraments from the Pastor of the place where they have already contracted quasi-domicile.⁴

4° But a stranger can be baptized with the permission, either express or reasonably presumed, of his own priest.⁵

5° Religious can baptize in a case of necessity, or with the permission of the same Pastor and of their own Superior, since this is prohibited by no law.⁶

6° Father and mother ought not to baptize their own offspring except in danger of death, when another who may baptize is not found. Rit. Rom. Cf. St. Alphonsus.⁷

Note. - The dispositions of law under 1°, among us, prescinding from diocesan statutes, are to be understood with the limitation which the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore⁸ indicates in these words: "Worthy of gravest reproof are priests who rashly baptize infants offered to them from another parish or diocese, when they could easily have been baptized by their own pastor."

1259. Questions. - Query 1° What order is to be observed among Ministers of Baptism?

Resp. In the Roman Ritual it is thus held: "If a priest is present, let him be preferred to a deacon; a deacon to a subdeacon; a cleric to a layman; and a man to a woman, unless for the sake of modesty it is fitting that a woman rather than a man baptize an infant not yet entirely born, or unless the woman should know better the form and mode of baptizing." See St. Alphonsus.¹

Query 2° Does a layman sin mortally who, in necessity, with a priest present, baptizes?

Resp. Affirmatively, with the common sentence. The reason is, because then he truly usurps the right of the priest, to whom from the power of Order the office of baptizing has been committed. Therefore also the priest himself sins gravely if he yields the administration to a layman. Yet a layman is to be preferred to an excommunicated priest.²

Query 3° Does a layman sin gravely by baptizing before a deacon?

Resp. It is controverted. The first probable sentence affirms; because a deacon, by force of ordination, is deputed to baptizing, although from the actual practice of the Church he cannot solemnly baptize except for a grave cause and with the permission of the Pastor.

The second sentence, likewise probable, denies; because a deacon baptizing in a case of necessity without commission does not baptize from office, but in the same manner as an inferior cleric or layman. - St. Alphonsus³ says that each sentence is probable.

Query 4° Is it lawful for a layman, with the permission of a priest or Bishop, to baptize infants, on account of the common dangers of life, where there is no availability of a priest?

Resp. Kenrick: "We judge that it must be denied; for both the testimonies of the Fathers speak of one in danger and about to perish, and the decrees of the Church plainly treat of the same necessity. Thus Eugene IV says: with danger of death imminent, let them be baptized even by a layman.... If therefore a priest is not going to return except after some months, not on that account will it be lawful to baptize infants who meanwhile are born without any danger, but only those who are placed in danger. We judge the same must be said, even if afterward no hope of sacred ministry should shine forth; for we have learned from no document of the Church that a layman can be deputed to baptize outside danger of death. But the less hope there is that a priest will come, we think the less danger suffices for a layman to baptize; nor is the hour of death to be awaited; but if the illness brings danger of death, Baptism is to be ministered."⁴ - But when necessity urges, "if the weather is severe, and the journey long, or if the priest is infirm in health, or burdened with very many occupations of his sacred ministry" (I would add: which cannot be deferred), "he does not seem to sin by rejecting the burden of baptizing onto a layman who knows how to furnish it."⁵ (2) p. 416.

Query 5° At what age of infants is this Sacrament to be conferred?

Resp. As soon as it can be done, although danger of death does not urge. Cf. Rit. Rom. - the Bull Cantate of Eugene IV, etc. - More specially the C. S. O. on 30 July 1771 established: "Pastors are obliged to baptize infants without any delay, if danger of death is imminent; but if danger is not present, the administration of Baptism is not to be deferred beyond the third day after birth."⁶ Moreover all agree that it is grave sin to wait for a long time. Yet St. Alphonsus⁷ more probably denies that a delay which does not exceed 10 or 11 days is grave. - Kenrick observes:⁸ "In most of the United States great neglect in this matter is found; for there are those who allow several months to pass before they fulfill this office. Theologians recognize grave sin in delay whenever there is availability of a priest and the infant can be brought without danger. Moreover the excessive cold of winter, length of the journey, contrary will of a non-Catholic father, and other excuses often occur; but the solicitude of priests is to be employed in this, that they be brought as soon as possible." Therefore the Fathers of the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore say:⁹ "We will that pastors of souls most sharply and more often rebuke the detestable sloth of Catholic parents, who do not take care that the age of little children, exposed to so many dangers, be fortified at once by the Sacrament of Baptism."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Query 4° Are exposed infants to be baptized?

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

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

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

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

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

Nevertheless note the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore the Baptism of all these is rightly presumed doubtful.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"A) Abjuration, or Profession of Faith.

"B) Conditionated Baptism.

"C) Sacramental Confession with conditionated Absolution.

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

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

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

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

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

Patrons are, as it were, spiritual fathers, who lift the baptized person from the sacred font, and, in default of the parents, undertake care of him.

1265. Principles. - I. In solemn Baptism there must, under grave obligation, be employed at least one patron, whether he be a man or a woman; nor can more than two licitly be employed. Thus Trent established.¹ But if a Parish Priest were to admit more patrons than two, he would sin gravely, because he would violate the precept of the Church imposed under grave obligation, lest relationships be multiplied.²

II. In order that someone be truly a patron, the following conditions are required: 1° that he have the use of reason, and himself be baptized; 2° that he have been designated by the parents, or justly by the Parish Priest; 3° that he touch the one to be baptized, by himself or at least through another, and indeed physically (which more probably also holds as regards adults to be baptized³), and in the ablution itself, so that it does not suffice if it is done among the ceremonies;⁴ 4° that he have the true intention of carrying out the office of a patron.⁵

1266. Questions. - Query 1° What are the obligations of patrons?

Resp. They are held to fulfill the office of teacher in a case of necessity, or when the parents of the little child are lacking. Hence they are held to instruct the baptized person concerning Faith, morals, various obligations, etc. But they are released from every obligation when they can prudently presume that the baptized person is diligently instructed by the parents.⁶

Consequently the priest, after Baptism has been conferred, must warn the patrons concerning the obligations undertaken, and besides concerning the spiritual relationship contracted. - But concerning that relationship contracted through Baptism we shall speak where we treat of the impediments of Matrimony.

Query 2° In private Baptism must a patron necessarily be employed?

Resp. Negatively, because he does not seem to be required by the Church except for solemn Baptism. Nevertheless also in private Baptism he can be employed, and more laudably is employed. - Thus commonly with St. Alphonsus.⁷ But if he is employed and lifts the infant with the intention of a patron, he contracts relationship.⁸

Query 3° Can the patrons be two males, or two females?

Resp. Negatively, because Trent established that at most two patrons can be employed, namely a man and a woman. But it is probable that it is only venial, if it is done thus. Several, however, with Bonacina, think that it is mortal. - "This seems truer," says St. Alphonsus,¹ "if the patrons were of a different sex from the infant, because thus the relationships would be multiplied, which Trent wished to prohibit; otherwise if they were of the same sex."

Query 4° Must the patron of a male, if he is the only one, be male, and of a female, female?

Resp. More probably, negatively; because Trent says: "Whether man, or woman"; therefore a man or a woman can be employed indiscriminately.²

Query 5° Who are prohibited from being patrons?

Resp. Validly indeed, but illicitly, the following are patrons: 1° an Abbot and Monk, or a Religious and Nun of any Order in which solemn vows are emitted (or of any religious Institute whatever, in whose Rule this is prohibited), and this whether by himself or by procurator; 2° spouses with respect to spouses, and parents with respect to children; 3° all who are of depraved morals and lost reputation, as heretics, unbelievers, those publicly excommunicated or interdicted, those who are not of sound mind, those who are ignorant of the rudiments of the faith. - Therefore those notoriously enrolled in condemned societies, public concubinarians, and other public criminals are to be kept away. - Besides, "it is most fitting that patrons be at least in the age of puberty, and marked with the Sacrament of Confirmation." - Concerning a heretical patron Kenrick warns:⁴ "To avoid grave offense, sometimes a heretic who presents himself as sponsor is not openly repelled: nevertheless he is never to be admitted as sponsor, but the parents are to be warned that only a Catholic can perform that office: wherefore the custom of some persons everywhere receiving heretics for that office is altogether to be disapproved, being satisfied if one or the other sponsor is Catholic."

It is mortal, without grave cause, for example urgent necessity, to omit all the ceremonies of Baptism, or some notable one from them, because thus a grave precept of the Church is violated.¹

1267. Resolves. - 1° Necessity being excluded, it is mortal to baptize without the anointing of Chrism, because this has a special and grave signification.²

2° Outside a case of necessity, it is mortal to baptize solemnly with non-consecrated water, because an omission of this sort in the ceremonies of Baptism is very grave. Probably there will be no sin, if there is question of private Baptism.³

3° It is mortal without necessity to baptize outside the Church, unless there is imminent proximate danger of death, or some other great inconvenience is present.⁴ Wherefore the Fathers of the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore⁵ command "that priests never dare to confer this Sacrament outside the church" (not even in the sacristy without a reasonable cause to be approved by the Bishop. S. C. R. 16 Mar. 1861) "except in an imminent case of death, in cities having one or more churches. Those who live in the country, or in villages and little towns, where there is no church, should bring infants to the nearer church or station, in which the Holy Sacrifice is usually offered, to be baptized. But if because of intemperate weather, difficulty of the journey, poverty of the parents, or other grave causes this cannot be done, then they leave it to the prudence of the Missionary," and, as the S. C. de P. F. also commanded on 21 Jan. 1739, "that they baptize them at home" and "with all the ceremonies of the Church." - Concerning the place in which the children of kings or great princes can be baptized, see, if you wish, St. Alphonsus.⁶ (7) p. 401.

4° It is mortal to omit the anointing of the Oil of Catechumens, or other similar things; because it is grave matter, at least from the end of the Church, just as the commingling of water with wine in the Sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist.⁷

1268. Questions. - Query 1° Is it ever lawful to defer the ceremonies for a time?

Resp. Negatively, unless with the license of the Ordinary, where it can conveniently be had (De Herdt, Pr. R. R. c. 2. § 12. n. 1), and for a grave cause, lacking which Baptism is to be deferred until the ceremonies can be completed.²

Query 2° If Baptism solemnly conferred is found to be invalid, are the ceremonies also to be repeated?

Resp. It is controverted. There is a twofold probable sentence. Hence the ceremonies are not necessarily to be repeated: nevertheless it is to be advised that they be repeated, if it can be done without scandal or infamy.³

Query 3° Are omitted ceremonies afterward to be supplied?

Resp. Affirmatively, and that as soon as possible and under grave obligation, unless nevertheless as regards heretics validly baptized and returning to the Catholic Church, "for a reasonable cause it should seem otherwise to the Bishop." See nevertheless what has been said in n. 1264. II. - If there is question of a "Catholic adult validly baptized after birth, ... the ceremonies and prayers are to be observed ... for the Baptism of infants."⁴

Query 4° What does the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore specifically command concerning the names which are imposed upon those to be baptized?

Resp. "When various names, both of Saints and of family, are bestowed upon infants in Baptism, if the priest has judged it expedient, in the first interrogation let him express all the names; but in the following forms and prayers let him repeat only the names commonly called Christian. But in the book of Baptisms let all the names be recorded."⁵

Query 5° What likewise concerning the Baptismal font?

Resp. "Care is to be taken that baptismal fonts under key be erected as soon as possible in each church" (not in the sacristy. Gardell. in S. R. C. 16 Dec. 1826. III. ad V. 1), where the Sacrament of Baptism is ordinarily ministered; "near these let all things which pertain to the administration of this Sacrament be kept cleanly."⁵

Query 6° How is the prohibition of using old Chrism, or that of another year, to be understood?

Resp. 1° It is to be taken rigorously, when new Chrism is had. Therefore the priest would sin gravely who, the recent Chrism being available, used the old.

Resp. 2° If the new is not had in due time, this happens either fortuitously (because, for example, he who was to bring it came late), or regularly (for example, on account of the great distance of the parish from the episcopal city). - In the latter case the blessing of the Font is to be celebrated with the infusion of the Oils of the preceding year, and the new ones are to be employed in the blessing of the Font, which, the contrary custom having been eliminated since it is an abuse, ought to be done (S. R. C. 7 Dec. 1844 in Urbevet.) on the Vigil of Pentecost. - In the former case the Font is blessed on Holy Saturday, without the old Oils being infused (unless, nevertheless, it is foreseen that Baptism is to be solemnly ministered immediately after the blessing of the Font). But the new Oils, as soon as they have been received, are to be infused into the Font blessed without Oils, privately (i.e. without solemnity) and separately by a priest vested in surplice and stole, the rite of the Missal being observed. But if before they have been received an infant to be baptized is brought, his Baptism is not to be deferred until they are received, but, with the old Oils infused into the Font, it is to be conferred solemnly, and in this case the new ones are infused on the Vigil of Pentecost. - S. R. C. 12 Apr. 1755 in Lucan. ad 3.; 23 Sept. 1837 in Oriol. ad 1. 2. 3. 4.; 12 Aug. 1854 in Lucion. ad 79. 80.¹

Query 7° What does the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore warn concerning the blessing of a woman after childbirth?

Resp. "Let pastors commend that pious rite. The prelates desire, ... that the blessing ... not be conferred in future promiscuously, and with no account had of the disposition of the woman after childbirth, nor outside the church or the place where the Holy Sacrifice is offered."² (a), p. 393.

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.

111. The first sacrament is Baptism, preceding all the others in the order of reception and of necessity, as that by which we are regenerated unto spiritual life. It is called from the Greek word βαπτίζω, which properly signifies the same as to immerse, to dip, to wash (plonger, laver; - dompelen, dopen); whence it signifies washing, and is used in various senses, even in the Scriptures, whether for common washing (Judith XII, 7), or for legal and ritual washing (Neh. IV, 23; Mk. VII, 4; Heb. IX, 10), or for the baptism of John (Mt. III, 7, 11), or finally for Christian baptism (Mt. XXVIII, 19; Mk. XVI, 16). Metaphorically, however, it is used for a great affliction, as for the Passion of Christ (Luke XII, 50; Mk. X, 38), and for the copious outpouring of the grace of the Holy Spirit (Acts I, 5).

In the stricter and theological sense, however, it is taken for the sacrament of regeneration through the laver of water and the express invocation of the Most Holy Trinity.

112. Baptism is defined: A sacrament of the New Law instituted by Christ the Lord, in which, through the washing of water imparted by a minister under the invocation of the Most Holy Trinity, man as wayfarer is regenerated unto supernatural and divine life and is joined to the Church. In this definition there is indicated:

1. The genus to which Baptism pertains: a sacrament of the New Law,

2. The author of Baptism, or the principal efficient cause: instituted by Christ the Lord,

3. The matter: in which through the washing of water,

4. The form: under the invocation of the Most Holy Trinity,

5. The ministerial cause: imparted by a minister,

6. The subject: man as wayfarer,

7. The effect, both principal, or grace: is regenerated unto supernatural and divine life; and secondary, or character: and is joined to the Church.

113. Baptism has been designated by various names:

1. From the matter it is called the laver (λουτρόν) of water (Eph. V, 26), the sacrament of water, the generative wave, the river of living water.

2. From the form, the seal (σφραγίς; II Cor. I, 22), the sign or sealing of faith, the sacrament of faith, the sign of the Most Holy Trinity.

3. From the effect: the laver of regeneration and renewal (Tit. III, 5; Hermas, sim. IX, 16), the washing away of sins (Acts XXII, 16), and illumination (φωτισμός: II Cor. IV, 4, 6; Heb. VI, 4), especially among the Greeks.

114. Division of the treatise. - The treatise is divided into five questions:

1. On the sacrament of Baptism itself: a) on its institution, b) on the matter, c) on the form.

2. On the effects of Baptism.

3. On the necessity of Baptism.

4. On the minister of Baptism.

5. On the subject of Baptism, namely, on those to be baptized: a) adults, b) children, c) children of non-Catholics, d) the unborn, e) abortives, f) monsters, and g) those to be rebaptized under condition.

There is added an appendix on the ceremonies of Baptism.¹

¹ Besides the general works on the Sacraments, the special works on Baptism can usefully be consulted: St. Thomas, III, q. 66-71, with the commentaries of Cajetan, Sylvius, and Billuart; - likewise Suarez; - among more recent writers: Tanquerey in dogmatic and moral theology; De Smet, De Sacramentis in genere, Baptismo et Confirmatione; - dogmaticians such as Billot, Van Noort, and Hugon; - historians and cultivators of positive science: Corblet, Histoire dogmatique, liturgique, archéologique du Sacrement de Baptême; Ermoni, Le Baptême dans l'Église primitive; Dict. de Théol., art. Baptême; Imposition des mains; Coppens, L'Imposition des mains et les rites connexes; d'Alès, De Baptismo et Confirmatione; for practical questions, St. Alphonsus and the modern manuals known to all; among canonists, Cappello, Tractatus canonico-moralis de Sacramentis, I; Claeys-Bouaert and Simenon, Manuale Iuris Canonici.

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. The incisions which injure the organs not of the fetus but of the mother are:

a) Caesarean section (keizersnede, so called because Julius, called Caesar, i.e., cut out, was thus born), or hysterotomy (baarmoedersnede): it consists in an incision of the abdomen and of the maternal uterus in order to extract a living fetus who, on account of the narrowness of the mother or other causes, such as death, irreducible retroversion of the uterus (onherstelbare omkanteling van de baarmoeder), placenta previa,¹ cannot be brought forth by the natural way;²

¹ The placenta is called previa when it adheres over the internal mouth of the uterus or near this mouth. This occurs when the ovule descends as far as the mouth of the uterus, and there the decidua serotina and then the placenta are developed.

² You will find the manner of performing the Caesarean operation among certain theologians, such as Dens, Theol. Mechlin., Aertnijs, and in Antonelli, c. c., t. I, n. 446.

b) symphysiotomy³ (schaamboogdoorsnijding), by which the cartilage, or symphysis, which joins the two bones of the pubis is cut. This operation is done if the impossibility of birth arises from narrowness of the pelvis (bassin, bekken), provided, however, that the narrowness is not excessive; for thus the breadth of the pelvis is increased so that the fetus can pass through it more easily;

³ It is the operation which Dr. Sigault first employed, in the year 1768; it is more dangerous than Caesarean section: in the latter, indeed, the section is deeper, but in the former harder; yet, in a particular case, it can be judged safer.

c) pubiotomy (schaambeendoorsnijding), by which, for the same end, one or both bones of the pubis are cut;

d) combined operations⁴ (vereenigde behandelingen): that is, symphysiotomy together with artificial premature delivery; thus the Caesarean operation is avoided, and the mother is healed after a few days.

⁴ They are of Dr. Iacolucci, in the year 1867.

II. The aforesaid operations are not illicit, unless they are done in such circumstances in which, on account of the weakness of the mother, the inexperience of the operator, or a certain danger of infection, they appear destructive of the mother and equivalent to killing. For Saint Thomas says (III, q. 68, a. 11, ad 3): "Evils are not to be done that goods may come about (Rom. IV, 8), and therefore a man ought not to kill the mother (or the infant) in order to baptize the child"; whence Caesarean section is illicit if it brings with it, as it were necessarily, the death of the mother or of the infant.

Nevertheless, in fact it is almost always licit, if the fetus is viable,⁵ and birth cannot be obtained in any other way. Formerly it often brought great danger and was an extraordinary means; today, because of the progress of surgical art, if it is done by an expert, it often is not very dangerous, nor is it a means so extraordinary, but for the most part it includes a rather remote danger of death for the mother, especially if precautions by antiseptic means are employed; but by an inexperienced person, e.g., by a priest, while the mother is living, it cannot be done. The same is to be said a fortiori of a less dangerous incision, which they call the vaginal Caesarean operation,⁶ namely, by which the opening of the female genital canal (moederscheede) is widened, which is the natural way by which the infant is born.

⁵ It is said: "if the fetus is viable"; for, as De Smet notes (De Sacramentis, n. 316): "If the infant is in danger before mature birth, seven months, because the pregnant mother is sick even unto death, and therefore it is to be feared lest the offspring die with her, regularly the death of the mother is to be awaited, and when she has died, the fetus is to be cut out from the maternal womb... And indeed: a) there can scarcely be a question of conferring Baptism in the uterus, both because before mature birth the uterus is penetrated with greater difficulty, and because for rightly administering the sacrament the membranes enclosing the fetus would have to be perforated; and this perforation would inevitably bring with it the effusion of the amniotic fluid and the expulsion of the immature fetus; but the expulsion of a fetus not yet viable would constitute abortion, and seems gravely illicit. (See nevertheless below, II, q. 3, n. IV.) b) Regularly there will be no place for Caesarean section, inasmuch as, the weakness of the mother being supposed, it would be deadly in the case."

⁶ It is the operation of Dr. Hubert, who was professor at the University of Louvain. This is done if birth is impeded not from narrowness of the pelvis, but from closure or perverse disposition of the fleshy parts, which cannot otherwise be overcome.

III. The mother is also bound (of herself under grave obligation) to undergo an operation, even Caesarean section, if 1) she cannot give birth naturally; 2) in the judgment of an expert the infant cannot otherwise be baptized; and 3) the safety of the mother and of the infant can prudently be hoped for by means of the section; for the mother cannot be killed, nor the fetus himself, so that this latter may be baptized before he dies.

Hence there is required a) that the fetus be viable, ordinarily of seven months; otherwise he would be killed; b) that the mother be robust; c) and that there be an expert surgeon. For then, by the law of charity, the mother must, under grave obligation, prefer the eternal salvation of her neighbor, namely of the infant, to temporal good and life.

Hence generally the obligation of the mother does not exist, because a) more often the fetus survives the deceased mother, or there is serious hope that he will survive; b) generally, by means of an instrument, he can be baptized in the uterus; c) for preserving her own life, and a fortiori for preserving the life of the fetus, the mother probably is not bound to have recourse to a means which perhaps is, or at least is still reputed to be, extraordinary.

For practice, even in the case in which she is bound to undergo the incision, prudence generally forbids warning a mother who is in good faith about the grave obligation, because of the danger lest perhaps, by refusing consent, she die in the state of sin. Nevertheless, the priest, and likewise the physician and relatives, ought to exhort her to the section. The physician is obliged to perform it, if it is asked of him, and he is bound to exhort the mother to undergo it, because from justice he must employ safer means for preserving the life of the mother and of the offspring; whence the priest should induce the physician to furnish this office.

IV. When a pregnant woman has died, immediately after death the Caesarean operation is to be done, as the Roman Ritual prescribes, tit. II, c. I, n. 17: "If a pregnant mother has died, let the fetus be extracted cautiously as soon as possible, and if he is living, let him be baptized" (Can. 746 § 4; S. Off., 15 Feb. 1780). But 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 heat; however, to open the mother's mouth, lest the infant perish by lack of respiration, is of no utility, because he does not breathe through the mother.

To this section, of themselves all are bound by the grave precept of charity, because all are bound to provide for the eternal salvation of the infant even with the greatest temporal inconveniences; and, if the fetus is viable, there is added another reason, that of preserving his temporal life.⁷ They are bound, however, provided three conditions are present:

⁷ "The obligation," says De Smet (De Sacramentis, n. 313), "begins from the death of the mother, known with moral certainty, and perseveres until the morally certain death of the offspring... But how long life can be preserved for infants in the uterus of a dead mother cannot be determined: this depends much on the character of the disease from which the pregnant mother died; but there is no doubt that the fetus can survive the mother for an hour, indeed for several." Namely, in the placenta there remains a sufficiently great amount of blood that from it he can assimilate the necessities of life; and this is the greater because little suffices for sustaining that tender life.

1. the mother is morally certainly dead; whence the section is not to be done except after the testimony of an expert concerning death;

2. it is probable that the fetus is living; hence no one is bound to it at the beginnings of pregnancy, in the second or third month, because then the fetus is almost always dead, or at least it is very uncertain whether he will emerge living; nevertheless it is to be done in the fourth month, especially if the woman has perished by sudden or very rapid death, unless there are grave reasons for judging that the fetus died before the mother or with her;

3. those acting are suitable and have sufficient skill so that they can accomplish the section without danger to the fetus; nevertheless no one is bound beforehand to learn the art or manner, because, in order to satisfy a precept, no one is bound to employ remote means, namely when the precept does not yet urge. Hence:

a) the operation first falls upon the physician, who is to be induced to perform it even if he says that the offspring is already dead, because in this matter they are accustomed to proceed more lightly and to speak thus lest they perform the section; and yet there is no doubt that the fetus can survive the mother for an hour, indeed for several;

b) but if he is unwilling, let another, e.g., a midwife, who is suitable for this, approach; the priest should warn such a person concerning this, unless very grave inconveniences are feared;

c) if others are lacking, the priest is not certainly bound to this, both because of frequent inexperience, and because of indecency, and especially because of the danger of scandal and of greater evil from the hostile talk, hatred, and calumnies of the enemies of religion; for the scandal of many is to be avoided more than the salvation of one infant is to be procured (S. Off., 15 Feb. 1780; 13 Dec. 1899). Nevertheless, these reasons do not hold for all circumstances, e.g., if there is a discreet Catholic family, or in missions, the Chinese nevertheless excepted; whence, according to several authors, of himself he would be bound: although this is perhaps more probable, nevertheless it is not certain.⁸

⁸ Many teach that the priest is bound, such as Cangiamila, Debreyne, Th. Mechl., Vering, Konings, and Behmkuhl; nevertheless others deny it, such as Bouvier, Gousset, Marres, and Berardi.

V. Case. It can happen that a woman or girl illegitimately pregnant, with no one knowing it, is in imminent danger of death. Now, after the fourth month of pregnancy, there is a well-founded hope of extracting a living fetus from the uterus of the dead mother. Whence the woman has a grave obligation to disclose the matter directly to some person, so that after her death the Caesarean operation can be done and the infant baptized. She can furnish this:

a) by writing letters in which she declares that she wills that after her death the uterus be opened and the offspring baptized, which signed and sealed letters she should hand to a trustworthy person, to be opened only after death. For thus, as far as can be done, provision is made for her reputation and for the salvation of the offspring;

b) if she cannot write, or does not wish to, let her manifest the matter orally to a wholly discreet person, who will reveal the fact only after her death;

c) other things being equal, for a duty of this kind the physician is to be chosen before others, who perhaps already knows the matter under professional secrecy, who can more fittingly provide for the reputation of the mother and of the family, and who, when necessity urges, can at once proceed to the section and baptism; parents are less suitable, who perhaps, from excessive fear of infamy, will abstain from revelation;

d) the confessor himself should only with difficulty and in the last place take upon himself the burden of revealing, especially if he fears lest from this the sacrament be rendered odious to the relatives of the girl.

But the confessor should induce the penitent to this by persuading and commending, not impose it as obligatory, if he finds that the penitent will certainly refuse it; for then he would uselessly disturb good faith, which in fact would not profit the infant and would harm the salvation of the mother. If, however, she doubts and asks concerning the obligation, the confessor must acknowledge the obligation.

VI. Observations. 1) To avoid the above-mentioned incisions by preventing conception, utero-ovarian amputation (the operation of Dr. Porro), or amputation of both ovaries, is often done; it is had without great hemorrhage or suppuration, and for that reason is said to be preferable to Caesarean section. But grave mutilation⁹ of the body is licit only (and indeed with the consent of the mother supposed) for preserving the life of the whole body, which therefore cannot otherwise be preserved, because the part itself is infected by disease and, from this very fact, even apart from pregnancy, brings danger to life; as with an arm and a foot. It is illicit if it is done in order never to conceive; indeed also, because evils are not to be done that goods may come about, in order to avoid the danger of a new pregnancy or of a new Caesarean section, the more so because a new pregnancy is doubtful and the danger is not yet imminent, and the Caesarean operation is not most grave, especially in a woman who has already undergone it, and this operation is as grave as Caesarean section.

⁹ Mutilation is grave not only by reason of danger or of the dimension of the member, but also by reason of function, e.g., if it deprives one of a power or function of great importance.

2. Oophorectomy, or ovosection (doorsnijding der eileiders), i.e., resection or ligation of the tubes of the oviduct, or of the canal leading from the ovary to the womb and carrying the maternal ovule to it, is gravely illicit for the same reason, as being a grave mutilation, except in the sole case in which the part labors under grave disease and constitutes a danger to life.

3. The same must be said of vasectomy¹⁰ in the man, or resection of the vessels or canals carrying the seed to the seminal vesicles (doorsnijding der zaadleiders), by which the way to ejaculation is broken off for the seed. Namely, it is gravely illicit, as being a grave mutilation, unless by reason of health it would be necessary for the good of the body, e.g., if a part of the deferent canal were infected with gangrene; whence it is not licit for obtaining sterility or impotence, even if perhaps the integrity of the canal and the power of inseminating could be restored, as some affirm, although in practice it is difficult; likewise, it is not licit for avoiding the multiplication of offspring or a dangerous birth, indeed not even for healing a great vicious inclination of lust: for the member, by its own nature, is immediately subordinated only to the good of the body, not to the good of the soul.

¹⁰ Concerning vasectomy, Nouvelle Revue Theologique 1910, p. 420; Revue Ecclesiastique de Liege, VI, 1910, p. 203; and Collationes Brugenses, XVII, 1912, p. 533, can usefully be read.

But public authority, since it does not have direct dominion over the life, liberty, and members of subjects, cannot take these away from them, and therefore cannot impose vasectomy upon innocent citizens, even the sick; to punish criminals in this way is incongruous, since it is not a suitable punishment, because the operation is little painful; finally, to use this means lest they harm others or lest, by entering marriage, they transmit disease by heredity, is not licit, because an evil means is not to be used for a good end, and also because other means are not lacking by which provision can be made for these things, e.g., prohibition by law under penal sanction, confinement, or abstinence from marriage.

It can also be noted that marriage, in the case of perpetual vasectomy, contracted, is invalid because of the impediment of impotence; but if the potency can be restored, it would also have to be restored when the consort demands it, yet then the end intended by authority would no longer be obtained. Moreover, bodily good is not the greatest common good of society; to this also pertains preserving human dignity, to which every species of animal selection is repugnant.

4. Likewise it is illicit to use the so-called X-rays or Roentgen rays, which, directed more intensely and with a greater dose upon the ovaries or testicles, can produce sterility, yet not always efficaciously and with fruit. For this is to be judged a grave mutilation, since it deprives one of a function of greater importance.

I. Three things are required for the validity of Baptism: 1) the intention of the minister, at least virtual, of doing what the Church does; 2) valid matter and form posited together; 3) a capable subject, for which in an adult there is required the intention, at least habitual, of receiving the sacrament. But if one of these is doubtfully present or has been present, Baptism, just as in a case of necessity it is to be conferred, so also is to be renewed: conditionally.

Concerning these, no special difficulty occurs, in relation to the present questions about embryology, except nevertheless for the matter of the sacrament, about which, therefore, we shall speak especially. But so that the exposition may be more complete and more perfect from every part, and the whole synthesis of theological doctrine may be seen, and at the same time the solution of cases may be manifest in all things, we also add the principles to be held concerning the form of the sacrament.

II. The remote matter required for validity is natural or elementary water in a liquid state, as is established from Jn. III, 5, and Acts of the Apostles VIII, 36; from the rituals; from the Fourth Lateran, Florence, and Trent defining it, sess. 7, can. 2; i.e., everything which comes under the use and name of water among men. Such is water of rivers, rain, a well, a spring, ponds, cisterns, a bath, marshes, lakes, the sea, whether bitter or poisoned or sweet, whether warm and boiling or cold and icy, whether blessed or not. Likewise water dissolved from snow, ice, hail, dew, mists, condensed vapors, or flowing from stones (sweat of pavement), leaves, or walls in rainy or winter time; likewise water obtained by chemical art or by distillation of another element, if it is pure from foreign elements; likewise water mixed with foreign matter in a small quantity, provided that not only chemically but also according to common estimation water is certainly predominant and it is still called water, e.g., turbid or somewhat muddy water, mineral, sulphurous, ferruginous water, etc.

Hence:

1. invalid matter is: wine, oil, broth of flesh or fat, fluids of an animal or human body: milk, blood, urine, saliva, tears, sweat, mucus, amniotic fluid, spittle, phlegms, etc.; sap pressed from trees, fruits (apples, pears, cherries), flowers, herbs, roots, grains; snow, ice, hail, hoarfrost, vapor, and other things not dissolved because they are not suitable for ablution; water very much mixed, so that it has more of a foreign substance than of water, or is no longer suitable for ablution, e.g., mud, ink, very good beer, good coffee, good tea, good broth, lye. For all these things are not water; or if they are, according to common estimation they do not have the use or name of water.

2. doubtful matter is thin broth, lye not too thick, small beer, ordinary tea-water or coffee-water, slight ink, water dissolved from salt, artificial water extracted by distillation from flowers or herbs, e.g., rose-water, violet-water, etc., or flowing from a vine or trees.

Baptism is defined according to the Roman Catechism: the Sacrament of regeneration through water in the word; and it is the first sacrament of the new law, and most necessary, instituted by Christ for the spiritual regeneration of man.

Thus the new Code:

§ 1. Baptism, the gate and foundation of the Sacraments, necessary for all unto salvation in reality or at least in vow, is not validly conferred except through the washing of true and natural water with the prescribed form of words.

§ 2. When it is ministered with all the rites and ceremonies which are prescribed in the ritual books being observed, it is called solemn; otherwise non-solemn or private (Can. 737).

From Baptism of water, which is called of the stream, there is distinguished Baptism of the Spirit and Baptism of blood, by which Baptism properly so called can be supplied, if the latter is impossible. The former is full conversion to God through contrition or perfect charity, insofar as it contains either an explicit or at least implicit will of receiving Baptism of water, according as the notion of this Baptism is or is not present to the mind of him who is thus converted to God. But the latter is the shedding of blood, or death, endured for the faith or for another Christian virtue. But only Baptism of water is properly called Baptism in reality; Baptism of the Spirit and Baptism of blood are called Baptisms in vow.

The principal effects of Baptism are numbered as three, namely: 1st. the remission of original sin and of actual sins, if there are any, through the infusion of sanctifying grace; 2nd. the total remission of eternal and temporal penalty due to sins; 3rd. the impression of a character, by which the baptized person is marked as a son of God and co-heir of Christ and is rendered incapable of receiving Baptism again. All these things are clear from the Council of Trent, sess. 5, in the decree de peccato orig.; and sess. 7, de Baptismo; and from the Council of Florence in the decree for the Armenians.

Baptism of water in reality or in vow, as this has been explained, from divine institution is altogether necessary for salvation by necessity of means. This is clear both from the words of Christ, John iii, 5: "Unless someone has been reborn from water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God"; and from the Council of Trent, sess. 7, can. 6, de Baptismo: "If anyone shall have said that Baptism is free, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema." - Cf. De Augustinis, art. 5, p. 354.

By Baptism a man is constituted in the Church of Christ as a person with all the rights and duties of Christians, unless, as concerns rights, an obstacle stands in the way, impeding the bond of ecclesiastical communion, or a censure imposed by the Church (Can. 87).¹

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1146, n. 119.

I say 1st. The valid remote matter of Baptism is only true and natural water; but the licit matter, outside the case of necessity, is only the same water, yet not turbid or foul, and moreover in solemn baptism water blessed for this must be employed. Cf. Can. 757, § 1. The first is clear from the Council of Trent, sess. 7, can. 2, de Baptismo, where these things are had: "If anyone shall have said that true and natural water is not of the necessity of Baptism, and therefore shall have twisted to some metaphor the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: 'Unless someone has been reborn from water and the Holy Spirit,' let him be anathema." But the other is clear from the Roman Ritual and the unanimous consent of theologians. - I said outside the case of necessity, because in danger of death any matter whatever, provided that it is not certainly invalid, can and must be employed under this condition: If this matter is sufficient. - But if he who was baptized with such matter has survived, when an abundance of certainly valid matter is had, he must be baptized again under this condition: If you are not baptized, I baptize you, etc. - But just as, according to St. Alphonsus, even a slight probability concerning the validity of the matter suffices for baptizing under the first condition, so also a slight probability concerning its invalidity suffices for rebaptizing under the other condition. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 102; and Hom. Ap., n. 8.

I say 2nd. The proximate matter of Baptism is washing, which can be done in three ways, namely by immersion, sprinkling, and pouring, according to the practice of the different Churches, so that by the moral judgment of men the baptized person is judged to have been washed. This is clear from the words of the form and the perpetual practice of the Church.

I say 3rd. Although baptism can be conferred validly either by pouring, or by immersion, or by sprinkling, nevertheless the first or second manner, or one mixed from both, which is more in use, is to be retained, according to the approved ritual books of the different Churches (Can. 758); so that with a triple washing the head of the one to be baptized is poured over, or he is immersed in the manner of a cross at one and the same time at which the words are pronounced, and the same one is applying the water and pronouncing the words. - Cf. Roman Ritual, Tit. II, c. 1, n. 10.

Question 1. What is the rule for knowing true and natural water?

Resp. The best rule of all is to have recourse to the common use and estimation of God-fearing men, leaving aside those things which are discussed by naturalists. Hence:

1st. Valid matter is: 1st. water of springs, wells, rivers, the sea, ponds, marshes, lakes; 2nd. water dissolved from ice, snow, or hail, because it preserves the same substance, although it is accidentally changed as to color, taste, or odor; 3rd. sulfurous or mineral water, water collected from vapor, dew, or flowing in rainy weather from a wall, leaves, etc.; 4th. turbid water, mixed with another substance, provided that water is truly and certainly the predominant matter.

2nd. Invalid matter is: 1st. milk, blood, tears, sweat, saliva, spittle, urine; 2nd. wine, oil, beer, thick juice from fat, etc.; 3rd. mud, ink; 4th. snow or ice not yet dissolved, because in this state it is not natural water, although some doubt concerning this, for ice is dissolved by contact, and thus some washing can be had.

3rd. Doubtful matter is: 1st. very thin broth, lye, thin beer, water from dissolved salt; 2nd. moisture flowing from a vine and other plants. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 103 and seq. - Cretoni, vol. 2, p. 134. - Lehmkuhl, nn. 58 and seq.

Question 2. What must be done in the case in which consecrated water, which is preserved in the baptismal font, appears diminished and foul?

Resp. It must be noted first of all that baptismal water often appears turbid and foul on account of chrism which perhaps has been mixed into it in too great a quantity, but in reality it is not so.

§ 2. If blessed water in the baptistery is so diminished that it seems less than sufficient, other non-blessed water is to be mixed in, even repeatedly, yet in lesser quantity.

§ 3. But if it has become corrupt, or has flowed out, or in any way has failed, the parish priest is to pour fresh water into the font, well cleaned and neat, and bless it by the proper rite prescribed in his liturgical books (Can. 757).

Among us the formula approved for our use is to be employed. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 102. - Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, n. 234. - Cretoni, vol. 2, p. 134. - Excerpts from the Roman Ritual, p. 238, edition 1878.

Question 3. Can a child in the womb of the mother be validly baptized?

Resp. Affirmatively, if he is touched by water by means of some instrument, because an infant enclosed in the womb of the mother is already a wayfaring man. But since some doubt concerning the validity of this Baptism, because such an infant, since he cannot properly be said to have been born, cannot be reborn, therefore it would have to be repeated under condition, and a fortiori if the water does not touch the child immediately.

Concerning this matter the new Code establishes these things:

§ 1. No one enclosed in the womb of the mother is to be baptized until there is probable hope that, once duly brought forth, he can be baptized.

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

§ 3. If he has put forth another member, he is to be baptized on it under condition, if danger is imminent; but then, if once born he lives, he is again to be baptized under condition.

§ 5. A fetus baptized in the womb, after birth, must be baptized again under condition (Can. 746).

Several physicians, in a case of necessity, are accustomed to baptize infants especially in the womb of the mother with water mixed with corrosive bichloride of mercury (in English, Bichloride of Mercury). This water is composed by a solution of one part of this mercuric chloride in a thousand parts of water, and the mixture is employed lest the uterus be affected by disease. This use is licit where there is a true danger of disease. Thus from S. C. S. O., 21 Aug. 1901. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 107. - Lehmkuhl, nn. 61 and seq.

Question 4. Is Baptism valid if the water touches only the garments or hair of the one to be baptized?

Resp. If the water touches only the garments, Baptism is certainly invalid; because thus no one would say that a man is washed; but it is more probably valid if the water touches the hair. But in practice the safer part is to be followed. Hence if the one to be baptized has hair, let the priest either part his hair with the fingers of the left hand while he pours water with the right, or baptize him on the forehead. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 107, q. 3.

Question 5. Is Baptism valid when conferred on another part than on the head?

Resp. Affirmatively, more probably, especially if Baptism is conferred on some more principal part, for example, on the breast, shoulders, etc. Nevertheless if necessity has compelled this, afterward, if it can be done, Baptism would have to be repeated under condition. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 107, q. 4.

Question 6. Does one or another drop of water suffice for baptizing?

Resp. Negatively, more probably, especially if the water does not flow, because it cannot be called washing, which is altogether required for Baptism; yet it is doubtful matter, which in a case of necessity would have to be employed. But theologians commonly say that it is certain matter if the one baptizing, by the movement of a wetted finger, were to wash a part of the body. Nevertheless, concerning certain persons baptized after the manner of an anointing on the forehead with the thumb wetted in baptismal water, the Holy Inquisition, 14 Dec. 1898, responded: "Care is to be taken that they be baptized again privately, under condition, with only the matter together with the form being employed, without ceremonies." - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 107, q. 6. - Elbel, n. 16.

Question 7. Is triple washing required for Baptism?

Resp. Certainly it is not required for validity; for a single washing suffices that one be judged truly washed. Thus all with St. Thomas, 3, q. 66, art. 8. But it is required for liceity, and indeed under grave obligation, because it is prescribed in the Roman Ritual, although this prescription seems to be understood only of solemn Baptism.

Question 8. What are the causes on account of which conditional Baptism is customarily conferred?

Resp. "For nearly three causes we have found that it has prevailed by the custom of the Church that a condition be employed in conferring Baptism: when it is prudently doubted whether Baptism previously conferred is valid or not; when necessity compels doubtful matter to be employed; when it is doubted whether the subject is capable of Baptism, as in monstrous births, or as in a difficult birth when it is doubted whether the sacrament can be confected by washing that part which alone can be washed; in one word, according to the custom of the Church, a condition is employed in Baptism when there is place for doubting whether something has been lacking or is lacking which is required for the validity of the sacrament." S. C. d. P. Fide, 17 April 1777.

The conditions required for the licit reception of Baptism must be carefully distinguished from those which are necessary for valid reception. . . . "In doubt whether an adult near death has been sufficiently instructed concerning the mysteries of faith and has sufficiently believed them, and in doubt whether he sincerely repents of his past life, when the necessity of death urges, the sacrament must be ministered to him absolutely without any condition. In doubt whether he truly intends to receive baptism, if after a previous diligent examination there is still doubt concerning this intention, baptism must be conferred under condition, provided that he is capable of baptism." 3 Aug. 1860, Holy Office.

I say. The form of Baptism is: I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Thus the Council of Trent defined, according to that saying of Matthew xxviii, 19: "Going therefore, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." - Nor is the addition of the word Amen required, the omission of which St. Alphonsus, with others, had thought to be a venial sin; for, when a doubt had been proposed, the Sacred Congregation of Rites, 9 June 1853, responded: "Strictly in the case let the Roman Ritual be observed," where certainly that word is not found.

Question 1. Do all and each of the words of the aforesaid form pertain to the essence of the sacrament?

Resp. Negatively, for the omission of the pronoun "ego," at least if the Latin language is employed, is not essential, nor would it exceed venial sin. The same seems more probably to have to be said concerning the omission of the conjunction "et," especially if only once, namely before the second Person, it is omitted. The same also is more probably to be held concerning the preposition "in," although several grave theologians contradict. But the other words are altogether required for validity. - I said if the Latin language is employed; for otherwise it would have to be said if the English, French, or German language were employed, because then, the pronoun having been omitted, the verb by itself alone does not determine the person of the Minister. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 111. - Kenrick, tract. 15, n. 9. - Analecta Jur. Pont., ser. 8, col. 1608. - Lehmkuhl, n. 64.

Question 2. Must the form be judged valid if in place of the word "baptize" there is said in the vernacular language "I christen"?

Resp. Negatively, probably, because by saying "I christen" there is indeed expressed the effect of baptism, which is that someone is aggregated to Christ, but the mode or action by force of which such aggregation is obtained is not expressed; and this indeed seems necessary. - Cf. Lehmkuhl, n. 63. - Amer. Eccl. Rev., vol. 1, p. 137 and seq.

Question 3. Is the form of Baptism valid if it is said: "I baptize you in the name of the Most Holy Trinity"?

Resp. Negatively, at least more probably, because in such a form the individual persons of the Holy Trinity are not expressed distinctly enough; since the word Trinity signifies the persons only confusedly and implicitly; but Christ willed that they be expressed distinctly. - But a fortiori the form would be invalid if it were said "in the name of Christ," because then the Trinity of persons would in no way be expressed. - Cf. St. Thomas, 3, q. 66, art. 6. - St. Alphonsus, nn. 111 and seq.

Question 4. Is Baptism valid if to the accustomed form there is added: "and in the name of the blessed Virgin Mary"?

Resp. A distinction must be made: it is not valid if someone doing this intends to confer Baptism in the name of the blessed Virgin, namely by attributing to such a name true efficacy for the validity of Baptism. But otherwise, if he does it from importunate devotion. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 111.

I say 1st. § 1. The ordinary minister of solemn baptism is a priest; but its conferral is reserved to the parish priest or to another priest with the permission of the same parish priest or of the Ordinary of the place, which in a case of necessity is legitimately presumed (Can. 738).

This is clear from the Council of Florence in the Decree of Union, from the Roman Ritual, de Baptismo, and from the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, where at n. 227 it is read thus: "The ordinary Minister of Baptism is the Bishop in his Diocese, the Parish Priest in his Parish. Hence worthy of very grave rebuke are priests who rashly baptize infants offered to them from another parish or diocese, when they could easily have been baptized by their own Pastor. This abuse, already noted by the Sixth Provincial Council of Baltimore, we again condemn and prohibit."

In another's territory it is licit for no one, without due permission, to confer solemn baptism, not even upon inhabitants of his own place (Can. 739).

I say 2nd. Any human being using reason, whether man or woman, whether Catholic or heretic, whether believer or unbeliever, is the extraordinary Minister of Baptism, so that he can always baptize validly and, in necessity, also licitly. The extraordinary minister of solemn baptism is the deacon; yet he is not to use his power without the permission of the local Ordinary or of the parish priest, to be granted for a just cause, which, where necessity urges, is legitimately presumed (Can. 741). The first is drawn from the Council of Florence in the Decree of Union and from the universal practice of the Church. But the other is clear from the Roman Pontifical, or from the Instruction of the Bishop to Deacons while he ordains them. Cf. Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, n. 228.

Where parishes or quasi-parishes have not yet been constituted, account must be taken of particular statutes and received customs, so that it may be clear to which priest, besides the Ordinary, the right of baptizing belongs in the whole territory or in part of it (Can. 740).

You Will Resolve. 1st. Parents sin who, outside the case of necessity, bring their offspring to be baptized by other priests; for by acting thus they violate the right of their own Pastor. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 114.

2nd. With permission either express or tacit, or even reasonably presumed, outsiders can be baptized, but then the alms, if any is had, must be remitted to the proper Pastor. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 115.

3rd. § 2. Even a traveler is to be solemnly baptized by his proper parish priest in his own parish, if this can easily and without delay be done; otherwise any parish priest in his own territory can solemnly baptize the traveler (Can. 738).

4th. § 1. Non-solemn Baptism, of which in can. 759, § 1, can be ministered by anyone, with due matter, form, and intention being preserved; but insofar as it can be done, two witnesses, or at least one, are to be employed, by whom the conferral of baptism can be proved (Can. 742).

5th. The order to be observed among the different Ministers of Baptism is thus described in the Roman Ritual: "If . . . a Priest is present, let him be preferred to a Deacon, a Deacon to a Subdeacon, a Cleric to a layman, and a man to a woman, unless for the sake of modesty it is fitting that a woman rather than a man baptize, or unless the woman knows better the form and manner of baptizing." Tit. II, c. 1, n. 16. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 117. - Lehmkuhl, n. 67.

§ 3. It is not licit for a father or mother to baptize his or her own offspring except in danger of death, when another who may baptize is not at hand (Can. 742).

Let the parish priest take care that the faithful, especially midwives, physicians, and surgeons, thoroughly learn the right manner of baptizing for a case of necessity (Can. 743).

The baptism of adults, where it can conveniently be done, is to be referred to the local Ordinary, so that, if he wills, it may be conferred more solemnly by him or by his delegate (Can. 744).

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

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

§ 2. When there is question of baptism:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1141, n. 102.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question 4. Are exposed infants to be baptized?

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

Question 5. Must those baptized by heretics be rebaptized?

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

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

Resp. The new convert is to be asked:

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

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

Socinians and Quakers confer no Baptism at all today.

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

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

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

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

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

Question 7. When must baptism be conferred?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1113, n. 61.

I say. § 1. From the most ancient custom of the Church, no one is to be baptized solemnly unless he has, insofar as can be done, his own sponsor (Can. 762).

This law, as is plain, is grave. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 146 and 154. - Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, n. 231. - Cretoni, vol. 2, note to n. 805.

Question 1. In private Baptism must a sponsor necessarily be employed?

Resp. § 2. Even in private baptism a sponsor, if he can easily be had, is to be employed; if he was not present, he is to be employed in supplying the ceremonies of baptism, but in this case he contracts no spiritual kinship (Can. 762).

And thus the dispute concerning the necessity of a sponsor in private Baptism is intercepted.

Question 2. In Baptism repeated under condition, is a sponsor necessary?

Resp. § 1. When baptism is repeated under condition, the same sponsor, insofar as can be done, is to be employed who perhaps was present in the former baptism; outside this case, in conditioned baptism a sponsor is not necessary (Can. 763).

Certainly any reasonable cause excuses.

Question 3. Are several sponsors admitted?

Resp. Only one sponsor, although of different sex from the one to be baptized, or at most one man and one woman, are to be employed (Can. 764).

The law seems to us to be grave in the sense that it would be mortal sin to have two men or respectively two women for a girl or for a boy, because spiritual kinship would be multiplied. Perhaps, with some most grave cause urging, the Ordinary having been consulted, it would be licit to employ more than two.

Question 4. What qualities are required that someone be a sponsor?

Resp. In order that someone be a sponsor, it is necessary that:

1st. He be baptized, have attained the use of reason, and have the intention of carrying out that office;

2nd. He belong to no heretical or schismatic sect, nor by condemnatory or declaratory sentence be excommunicated or infamous with infamy of law or excluded from legitimate acts, nor be a cleric deposed or degraded;

3rd. He be neither the father nor mother nor spouse of the one to be baptized;

4th. He be designated by the one to be baptized himself, or by his parents or tutors, or, these being lacking, by the minister;

5th. In the act of baptism, either through himself or through a procurator, he physically hold or touch the one to be baptized, or immediately lift or receive him from the sacred font or from the hands of the one baptizing (Can. 765).¹

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1147, n. 120.

Question 5. What qualities are required that someone be licitly admitted as sponsor?

Resp. But in order that someone be licitly admitted as sponsor, it is necessary that:

1st. He have reached the fourteenth year of his age, unless otherwise for a just cause it seems good to the minister;

2nd. He not be excommunicated because of a notorious delict, or excluded from legitimate acts, or infamous with infamy of law, although no sentence has intervened; nor be interdicted or otherwise publicly criminal or infamous with infamy of fact;

3rd. He know the rudiments of faith;

4th. He be a novice or professed in no religion, unless necessity urges and the express permission of the Superior, at least local, is had;

5th. He not be constituted in sacred orders, unless the express permission of his own Ordinary is added (Can. 766). - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 156. - Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, n. 231.

Question 6. What must be done in doubt concerning the qualities of one to be admitted?

Resp. In doubt whether someone can validly or licitly be admitted or not to the office of sponsor, the parish priest, if time is available, is to consult the Ordinary (Can. 767).

In a case of persisting doubt, scandal having been removed if any is present, let him himself admit as sponsor the person concerning whom he doubted. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 156. - Kenrick, n. 47. - O'Kane, n. 232. - Lehmkuhl, n. 71. - Acta S. Sedis, vol. 26, p. 448.

Question 7. What are the obligations of a sponsor?

Resp. It belongs to sponsors, from the office undertaken, to have the spiritual child perpetually commended to themselves, and, in those things which regard the instruction of Christian life, to take diligent care that he show himself in his whole life such as by the solemn ceremony they promised he would be (Can. 769).

Question 8. Who contract spiritual kinship?

Resp. From baptism, only the one baptizing and the sponsor contract spiritual kinship with the baptized person (Can. 768).

All other spiritual kinships are excluded from Baptism by this canon: the one baptizing contracts kinship with the baptized person, and the sponsor contracts it with the baptized person; but the one baptizing does not contract it with the sponsor, nor do the sponsors contract it among themselves if there have been two. The new Code resolves certain cases as regards sponsors.

§ 2. Even in private baptism a sponsor, if he can easily be had, is to be employed; if he was not present, he is to be employed in supplying the ceremonies, but in this case he contracts no spiritual kinship (Can. 762).

§ 2. When baptism is repeated under condition, neither the sponsor who was present at the former baptism nor the one who was present at the later contracts spiritual kinship, unless the same sponsor was employed in both baptisms (Can. 763).

I say. § 1. Baptism is to be conferred solemnly, with the prescription of Can. 759 being saved (Can. 755).

Excepting the case of necessity or of another grave cause, it is mortal sin to omit all the ceremonies of Baptism or some notable one from them, because the matter of the precept is grave, at least by reason of the end. Hence:

1st. It is mortal sin to omit the anointing of chrism or of the oil of catechumens; because these anointings have a special signification, just as the mixing of water into wine in the celebration of Mass.

2nd. It is mortal sin to baptize solemnly with non-consecrated water, because an omission of this kind in the ceremonies of Baptism is reputed very grave. But otherwise it must be said if there is question of private Baptism.

3rd. It is mortal sin to baptize outside the church without necessity or another great inconvenience. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 141, 142 and seq. - Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, nn. 234 and seq. - Lacroix, n. 263.

4th. § 1. It is fitting both that the priest who is about to baptize adults, and that the adults themselves who are healthy, be fasting.

§ 2. Unless grave and urgent causes stand in the way, the baptized adult is immediately to assist at the Sacrifice of Mass and receive holy Communion (Can. 753).

5th. § 1. In danger of death it is licit to confer baptism privately; and, if it is conferred by a minister who is neither priest nor deacon, only those things are to be placed which are necessary for the validity of baptism; if by a priest or deacon, the ceremonies which follow baptism are also to be observed, if time is present.

§ 2. Outside danger of death, the local Ordinary cannot permit private baptism unless there is question of heretics who at adult age are baptized under condition.

§ 3. But ceremonies which for any reason have been omitted in the conferral of baptism are to be supplied as soon as possible in the church, unless in the case of which in § 2 (Can. 759).

6th. § 1. But in private homes solemn baptism must not be administered, except in these circumstances:

1st. If those to be baptized are children or grandchildren of those who actually hold the supreme rule of peoples or have the right of succeeding to the throne, as often as these have duly requested it;

2nd. If the local Ordinary, according to his prudent judgment and conscience, for a just and reasonable cause, in some extraordinary case, has judged that this is to be granted.

§ 2. In the mentioned cases baptism is to be conferred in the chapel of the home, or at least in another decent place, and with baptismal water blessed in the customary manner (Can. 776).¹

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1127, n. 85.

Question 1. Can Baptism be conferred in the sacristy, especially where custom so bears?

Resp. Negatively. The proper place for administering solemn Baptism is the baptistery in a church or public oratory (Can. 773).¹

§ 1. Every parish church, any contrary statute or privilege or custom being revoked and reproved, is to have a baptismal font, with the legitimate cumulative right already acquired for other churches being saved.

§ 2. The local Ordinary can, for the convenience of the faithful, permit or command that a baptismal font be placed also in another church or public oratory within the boundaries of the parish (Can. 774).

If the one to be baptized, because of the distance of places or other circumstances, cannot without grave inconvenience or danger approach or be transferred to the parish church, or to another church which enjoys the right of a font, solemn Baptism can and must be conferred by the parish priest in the nearest church or public oratory within the boundaries of the parish, even though this lacks a baptismal font (Can. 775).

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1141, n. 103.

Question 2. How must a priest conduct himself when the little ones to be baptized are very distant from the church?

Resp. Concerning this matter the Fathers of Baltimore establish thus: "Those who live in the country or in villages and small towns where there is no church are to bring infants to the nearer church or station, in which the Holy Sacrifice is customarily done, to be baptized. But if on account of the inclemency of the air, the difficulty of the journey, the poverty of the parents, or other grave causes this cannot be done, then we leave it to the prudence and conscience of the missionary that he baptize them at home with all the ceremonies of the Church." - This last, in some dioceses among us, is limited to the case in which the little ones are distant from the church by a space of three miles. - Cf. Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, n. 237. - Ninth Diocesan Synod of Baltimore, n. xxxviii, p. 39.

Question 3. How must the prohibition of using old chrism, or chrism of another year, be understood?

Resp. It must be taken rigorously when new chrism is had; therefore a priest would sin gravely who, the recent chrism having been disregarded, used old chrism. - Cf. Can. 734, § 1, above n. 650. From the responses of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, 7 Dec. 1844, 13 April 1874, the consecration of baptismal water regularly must be done twice in the year, that is, on Holy Saturday and on the vigil of Pentecost, and indeed with oils blessed on Thursday in the Supper of the Lord. But if the sacred oils cannot be obtained so quickly, on Holy Saturday the parish priest "is to bless the font without the infusion of the sacred oils, which will be done privately at a suitable time; unless he must baptize someone, for then in the solemn blessing let the old oils be infused." S. R. C., 31 Jan. 1896, in Annecy. On the vigil of Pentecost the baptismal font is to be blessed with the new oils. Cf. Acta S. Sedis, vol. 28, p. 504. - Lehmkuhl, n. 60. - Génicot, n. 134.

I. I should have need of Tully's eloquence, that I might be able to lay open according to its worth the incredible sluggishness and drowsiness of certain parish priests in setting forth to adults and young men the most grave burdens and obligations which the baptismal profession carries with it. Very few among Christians will you meet who hold the force and signification of the Christian profession which by a solemn rite they uttered to God in baptism. Before we enter the Church of Christ, or are received into the society of Christ's faithful, first of all we renounce the devil, his pomps, works, and spectacles. What does this renunciation betoken? What are these pomps, what these works, what these spectacles upon which you have declared war, O Christian? Answer. Are you dumb, because you have not been instructed? Hear, and fix it in your heart. The profession made in baptism is that which separates Christians from the world, which is contrary to flesh, blood, pomps, and carnal delights, which distinguishes Christians from the pagans. The pagans observed justice, chastity, equity, and all those things which are necessary for fostering a tranquil society. What therefore do Christians renounce in the baptismal profession, that they may be distinguished from the pagans? Declare it. All the Fathers answer with one mouth, none excepted — especially Tertullian, Cyprian, Nazianzen, Cyril of Alexandria, Basil, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Salvian, and, to omit the rest, St. Charles Borromeo — that Christians renounced theatres, comedies, tragedies, dances, and the other spectacles of a raving world, vain, opposed to modesty and shame, such as are the naked display of the breasts in women, paint, curls, and other prestiges of this kind. The testimonies of the Fathers I have given in the Book On Theatrical Spectacles. One or another for brevity's sake I shall now transcribe.

II. In the Book On the Catechizing of the Uninstructed, chapter 6, St. Augustine instructs an uninstructed man to abstain from theatres if he wishes to be a Christian. But when those are instructed against whom a perverse crowd bodily fill the churches, at the same time also the precepts of Christian and honourable conversation are briefly and becomingly commemorated; lest by drunkards, the avaricious, defrauders, gamesters … lovers of spectacles … and others of this kind he be seduced, and reckon it perhaps unpunished for himself. Because he sees many who are called Christians to love these things, and to do them, and to defend them, and to persuade and prevail upon others.

III. Do you see? Even then carnal Christians dared to persuade and prevail that the frequenting of theatres was lawful — Christians who bodily, as now, filled the churches — from whose lies Augustine endeavours to preserve the uninstructed Christian. Again in chapter 25 he instructs the same uninstructed man against the frequenting of theatres, adding: You will also observe that those crowds fill the churches on the feast days of Christians who fill the theatres on the solemn days of the pagans, and you will be tempted to imitate them. At last, toward the end of the Book, he thus addresses his uninstructed man: Do thou therefore, believing these things, beware of temptations; for the devil seeks companions to perish with him, so that not only through those who are outside the Church — whether pagans, or Jews, or heretics — does that enemy seduce, but also through those whom you shall see within the Catholic Church itself living ill, or immoderate in the pleasures of the belly and the throat, or given to unchaste or vain curiosities, or to unlawful things, whether of spectacles … or in the pomp of pride and avarice. Do not imitate them, but rather be joined with the good, whom you will easily find, if you yourself shall be such.

IV. Unless dances, which are performed even in the theatre, and unless comedies and tragedies be pomps and spectacles of the devil, what will they be? Opportune are the things which Salvian writes, Book 6: In spectacles there is a certain apostasy of the faith, and a deadly prevarication of its very symbols and heavenly sacraments. For what is the first confession of Christians in baptism? What, namely, but that they protest that they renounce the devil and his pomps and spectacles and works? Therefore spectacles and pomps are, even according to our profession, works of the devil.

V. But let us hear a Father of the last age, St. Charles Borromeo, who in his homily on the seventh Sunday after Pentecost writes these things, treating of spiritual blindness: And what — woe is me! — do I hear? That in this city there lies open so savage a workshop of lusts and unchastities, that frequent comedies are recited, and on the stages actors, most unworthy men, masked, lead innumerable incautious young men of this city into the nets of the devil. … I confess indeed, my sons, that while I perhaps slept an enemy man oversowed these tares, and that without my knowing this plague crept in. But we shall certainly endeavour hereafter, God granting, to repress it. … The mime and the actor have invited you by bills fixed to the wall to a satanic invention, which they call a comedy; but hear me: a tragedy it is, and always will be. … Christ calls you through us … and yet his calls are contemned. … The time will come, most beloved, when you will desire to approach and will not be able … but to the mimes and actors of the fathers … prepared for unchaste women … and to the transit of men you will be sent. Read, I pray, the whole.

VI. What say they here who assert that the theatres of that age were different and more obscene, which the Fathers disapproved, from those which flourish in our age? The Fathers condemn that men come forth on the stage clothed in womanly garb, whom they call bufalloi, femellae. They condemn that women with shame cast off act as mimes. They condemn dances, they condemn the music which they call meretricious, they condemn the song which they call stimulating. The truth is inescapable, to which even the patrons of the theatres themselves subscribe: namely, that the music of our age is softer and the song more effeminate. Therefore on this side the theatres of our age are baser than the ancient ones. What of this, that in the ancient ones Christian women (and rarely pagan ones) did not come forth upon the stage? Therefore wrongly are all the theatres of our age traduced as honourable.

VII. Having therefore renounced pomps, spectacles, comedies, tragedies, dances, and all those things which cannot be referred to the glory of Jesus Christ, those to be baptized are admitted into the Church to profess the Christian religion: because a rebel, before he be reconciled to his prince, must first turn his back upon the enemy. In the Church they profess the symbol of faith and the Christian life. What is the Christian life? It is the imitation of the life of Jesus Christ; it is a perpetual war against the devil, the world, the concupiscence of the flesh and of the eyes, the pride of life, ambition, feigned luxury, pomps; it is a perpetual contest against the flesh, an interminable struggle against human appetites; it is a life of penitence, of humility, and of patience; it is the bond of charity, by which all Christians are joined both to God and to one another in an intimate union; it is a profession of singing praises to God, of praying, beseeching, and asking the divine grace; it is the toleration of injuries, persecutions, and calumnies. Not all these things suffice here: one must pray for persecutors and calumniators. Nor is all this enough: not in secret ought a Christian to serve God with an undaunted breast, but openly and publicly to confess — what? The Unity and Trinity of God, the Incarnation of Christ, the symbol, the sacraments. He ought to hold all these things, and it does not suffice. He ought moreover to profess Christian moral integrity and sanctity, which in this our age, no otherwise than formerly the articles of the symbol, suffers no light persecution. Nor ought the hatred and persecution of worldly men to deter a Christian from a profession of this kind: for unless he undergo such a danger, he cannot be Christ's servant. Christ's disciples complained that the world hated them; to whom Christ himself replied: Know ye that it hath hated me before you. If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, therefore the world hateth you. The servant is not greater than his lord. He who shall have blushed at me, my words, my precepts, my examples, my patience and humility, my fastings and persecutions — I too will blush at him before my Father. He that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father. You shall be hated by all the followers of the world for my name's sake. By these few things the image of the Christian profession has been delineated. If here there be lacking little devotions, frequenting of churches, and pious booklets, they profit nothing. The promise made in Baptism, the baptismal vow, is first of all to be observed. And that this observance may be carried through, there are to be added devotions, spiritual exercises, and the reading of pious books. But the Gospels — again I say the Gospels — are to be read with a profound humility and lowliness of mind, and continuously. Concerning this Christian profession read more in Vol. VIII, dissertation 2, chapter 17.

The NEGATIVE opinion is attributed to Alexander of Hales 4. part. quaest. 22. memb. 5. art. 1. Adrian in 4. quaest. ult. de Baptismo, Armachanus lib. 8. de qq. Armen. cap. 37. D. Bonaventure in 4. dist. 4. part. 2. art. 1. quaest. 2. — where however he did not teach it, nor can this opinion be found in his writings, as Suarez disp. 29. sect. 1. Vasquez disp. 153. cap. 7. Mastrius disp. 2. quaest. 7. art. 4. and other recent authors cited by him testify.

The SECOND opinion, the assertive one, is that of D. Thomas 2. 2. quaest. 114. art. 1. ad 1. et quodl. 6. art. 4. Richard in 4. dist. 4. art. 2. quaest. 3. Scotus dist. 4. quaest. 3., whom the others commonly imitate, as in Mastrius loc. cit. Soto disp. 3. art. 11. Suarez, and Vasquez above. This is the opinion of D. Bonaventure dist. 4. part. 2. art. 1. quaest. 2., where he limits the opinion of Alexander of Hales, who said that Baptism of water profits more persons than that of blood. Whence he makes no distinction here between infants and adults, as Suarez notes.

MORE CLEARLY, in the fourth part of that distinction, dub. 4. cit., where he confesses that the Holy Innocents are Martyrs by privilege. And in dubio 4. he asserts that an infant who, while being carried to Baptism, is killed so as not to be baptized, and dies for Baptism, is rightly and piously believed baptized in his blood: what could be clearer?

THE Innocents indeed the Church venerates as Martyrs, and the Holy Fathers confess it: Augustine lib. 3. de lib. arb. cap. 23. et lib. 2. de Symbolo ad Catech. cap. 5. et lib. 3. cap. 4. Cyprian serm. de Stella, et Magis. Leo Pope serm. de Epiph. primo, et secundo. Origen homil. 3. in varia Evang. loca. And the Church prays for them in its prayer as Martyrs.

S. Bonaventure adds, dub. 1., that the liberty of will was wanting to them, and therefore their Martyrdom was not so perfect as in holy adults; for to perfection charity is required, moving the will, as is said Ioan. 15. Wherefore, when Mastrius infers: If contrition were necessary, it would follow that in infants the Martyrdom is imperfect, according to the Fathers — which is readily granted to him: Nay, I retort: If the reason is equal, therefore no disposition of will is required in adults.

Caius, a missionary in southern Africa, had instructed Titius in the Catholic faith, which Titius indeed believed to be true; nevertheless, he was unwilling to embrace it before death. “I wish to be baptized before death,” he used to say, “so that I may die a Christian, although I cannot live as a Christian.” After a few years, Caius, hearing that Titius was dying, hastened to him and, finding him deprived of his senses, baptized him. Afterwards, however, Titius recovered and was unwilling to admit that he was a Christian. Caius therefore asks whether he ought to baptize Titius again if he should at some time be placed in danger of death. Hence it is asked:

1. What conditions are required on the part of the subject for the validity of Baptism?

2. What conditions are required on the part of the subject for the lawfulness of Baptism?

3. Can or ought Baptism to be repeated, at least conditionally?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. What conditions are required for the validity of baptism on the part of the recipient?

The only condition on the part of the recipient who has the use of reason that is requisite for the validity ot Baptism is a wish to be baptized. An habitual wish is sufficient. In such as have never had the use of reason, not even this wish is required for the validity of the sacrament.¹

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

2. What conditions are required on the part of the recipient for the lawful reception of Baptism?

Faith, hope, and at least attrition for sin are necessary dispositions for the lawful reception of Baptism.²

2 Ibid., p. 62.

3. May Baptism be repeated or ought it to be repeated at least under condition?

Baptism may and should be repeated, under condition whenever there is prudent doubt whether a person has been validly baptized. Otherwise it should not be repeated.³

3 Ibid., p. 63.

4. The case. Titius had expressed a wish to be baptized before death. He must be presumed to have intended to procure Baptism when he was in danger of death, as he could not wait till he knew whether death in reality ensued or not. Caius, then, acted according to his express will when he baptized him on finding him out of his senses and in danger of death. The Baptism was therefore valid though afterward Titius would not acknowledge his obligations, and it should not be repeated if he again falls into the danger of death.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 Ibid., p. 63.

3. What is to be done in the case?

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

Caius, converted from the Anglican sect to the Catholic faith, is questioned about his Baptism by Titius, the priest who is to receive him into the Church. “I remember all the circumstances well,” says Caius, “for I was born a Unitarian and, when I had reached twenty years of age, became an Anglican. Indeed, before Baptism the Anglican minister explained to me that the rite of Baptism had no supernatural efficacy and was only an external ceremony by which men are joined to the Christian community. Astonished by this declaration, I began to inquire further, and now at last I wish to be received into the true Church.” From Caius’s other statements Titius gathers that the Anglican minister did not use in conferring Baptism the reverence and attention that he ought to have used, but that otherwise he duly applied the matter and form. Nevertheless, he doubts whether or not he ought at least conditionally to baptize Caius. Hence it is asked:

1. What attention and intention are required in conferring the sacraments?

2. What is prescribed in England concerning converts to the faith who are to be baptized?

3. What is to be said of the case?

1. What attention and intention are required in conferring the sacraments?

Attention, or advertence of the mind to what is being done, is requisite under pain of venial sin for the lawful administration of the sacraments, but it is not necessary for their validity. What sort of intention is required is explained by all approved authors.

2. What is prescribed with regard to baptizing converts in England?

The First Council of Westminster (d. XVI, n. 7), decreed: “ We renew the rule absolutely, commanding that all converts from Protestantism are to be baptized conditionally unless it is most certainly established by indubitable proofs that in their baptism everything was duly performed with regard to the application of the matter and form. Such a baptism shall not be done publicly but entirely privately, with lustral water and without ceremonies. Sacramental confession also is always to be required in such a case.”

From this decree may be gathered what is prescribed by other ecclesiastical regulations: viz., that whenever there is question of receiving any one into the Church, inquiry should be made about the postulant’s Baptism. After inquiry, when there is any prudent doubt whether the person was ever baptized or whether the Baptism was valid, Baptism is to be administered conditionally, according to the method laid down in the decree.

3. The case. Caius well remembered all the circumstances of his Baptism administered by an Anglican minister when he was twenty years old. The Anglican minister did not act very reverently, but he rightly applied the matter and form. The intention to baptize Caius must be presumed. As all the essentials for valid Baptism were present, the Baptism was valid, and Titius must not baptize him again. He must absolve him from censures after he has made a profession of faith, and then direct him to make a general confession of his sins committed after Baptism. The Anglican minister did not hold the Catholic faith about Baptism, but his heresy could not make the sacrament invalid, if it had all the essentials for validity.

Caius, a priest most zealous for the salvation of souls, is accustomed not only to visit Catholics but also to seek lost sheep outside the fold. If he finds in Protestant families weak or sick infants who probably will never attain the use of reason, after asking permission to bless them he secretly baptizes them by applying to their heads a handkerchief previously moistened. Julius, however, another priest who serves the same Mission, condemns Caius for an injury against the sacrament and against the infants’ parents. Hence it is asked:

1. Who are the minister and the subject of Baptism?

2. Is it lawful to baptize infants against their parents’ will?

3. What is to be said of the case?

1. Who is the minister and who the subject of Baptism?

The ordinary minister of solemn Baptism is the parish priest, who may delegate his office to another priest, and for just cause even to a deacon. In case of necessity any one may baptize.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, p. 52.

The subject of Baptism is any living person who has not been baptized.

2. Is it lawful to baptize children against the wish of their parents?

Titia, until her marriage a year ago, lived with her parents in the parish of N., where Cajus is pastor. Upon her marriage, she went to live with her husband in a neighboring parish, some twenty miles distant, and has lived there ever since. A few weeks ago, about to become a mother, she returned to her parents' home and there gave birth to a strong, healthy boy. The following day Titia's mother took the baby to Cajus, the parish priest of N., to have it baptized. Cajus at first demurred, thinking that the baby ought to be taken to the present pastor of Titia and her husband, and he did not wish to give cause for criticism. However, on second thought, he concluded to baptize the child, and to send the stipend to Titia's actual pastor. On another occasion, a girl who was brought up in a neighboring parish, where her parents still live, married a man from Cajus' parish and lives there at present with her husband. When she was about to be confined, she returned to her parents' home and was confined there, but had the child brought to Cajus to be baptized, as he was her parish priest at present, and she liked him better than the pastor of the town where she was confined. This child Cajus also baptized, because although born outside his parish, it belonged to his jurisdiction, since its parents had their actual domicile in his parish. Cajus' way of doing gave rise to considerable discussion among his brother priests, some of whom defended him, while others censured him. In his dilemma, Cajus desires to know:

1. Was he right in baptizing a child born within his parish, but whose parents have a fixed dwelling outside of the parish?

2. Was he right in baptizing a child born outside his parish, but whose parents are his parishioners?

To the first question we answer yes. Cajus did right in baptizing the child born in his parish, although its parents had their domicile in another parish, and had no quasi domicile in his parish. St. Alphonsus, l. 6, tr. 2, de Bap. n. 115, says: “If a woman happens to give birth in a village not her own, the child is to be baptized by the pastor of that village. Nevertheless, if that village is only a short distance from her own, for example, two or three hours, the child may also be baptized in her own church.”

According to St. Alphonsus, therefore, the child has the privilege of being baptized wherever it is born. If it is not born in the parish of its parents, and if that parish is not far distant, for example, ten or twelve miles, then the child may be taken home to the parish priest of its parents to be baptized, but it need not be. In that case, both priests are parish priests "in ordine ad Baptismum." It is very easy to understand the reasons why a child ought to be baptized where it is born. If it had to be taken home to the parish where its parents reside, it would have to be separated from its mother for a long time, and at a most critical moment of its existence, or else it would have to be deprived of the grace of Baptism until its mother is sufficiently recovered to accompany it, which would be several weeks at least, and sometimes longer, so that the child would be exposed to the danger of dying without Baptism. This latter, of course, is against the will and desire of the Church, which commands that the child be brought to Baptism as soon as possible after its birth. It is always not only the privilege, but also the duty, of the pastor of the place where the child is born to baptize it if the child is taken to him, and he retains the stipend offered for the baptism as his own. If the parish of the child's parents is not too far distant, that is, if the child is exposed to no risk by being taken back to its parents' parish to be baptized, then it may be taken there, but there is no obligation to do so. St. Alphonsus limits the distance that the child may be carried to be baptized by its parents' pastor to ten or twelve miles.

The holy doctor lived, of course, when there were no railroads or other modern means of transportation, and ten or twelve miles in a stage coach or on foot was the measure of fatigue that a child could endure, and the time spent in making the journey the limit of time that a new-born babe might safely be separated from its mother. With modern methods of transportation, and the progress made in the artificial nursing of children, a new-born child might be carried much farther to-day than in the days of St. Alphonsus, and yet run no risk. Still, modern theologians follow St. Alphonsus in determining the distance that a child may be carried in order to have it baptized by the parish priest of its parents.

Thus Genicot, II., n. 139: “If a woman gives birth in a village not her own, the child is to be baptized by the pastor of that village. Nevertheless, if that village is only a short distance from her own, for example, three leagues, the child may also be carried to her own church.”

Bucceroni, S.J., de Bapt. n. 422: “In which parish ought an infant to be baptized if the parents have neither domicile nor quasi-domicile, or are distant from it? If a woman happens to give birth in a village not her own, the child is to be baptized by the pastor of that village; nevertheless, if that village is only a short distance from her own, for example, two or three hours, the child may also be baptized in her own church.”

Lehmkuhl, II. n. 66 ad 3: “Indeed, if a woman gives birth in a place not her own, the infant is to be baptized by the pastor of the place where the mother gave birth and lies ill, unless perhaps it can equally well be carried to its proper pastor; indeed, if the home parish is not more than three leagues distant, it is always lawful to carry the infant to its proper pastor.”

Kenrick, de Bapt. n. 14, Aertnys, C.SS.R., de Bapt. n. 35, Konings, 1258, etc., all repeat almost verbatim the words of St. Alphonsus, who himself takes this opinion from the theologians who preceded him, v. g., Croix, n. 275, Salmant. de Bapt. c. 4. p. 4, n. 58.

Therefore, we conclude, that in the first instance Cajus did right in baptizing the child born in his parish, but whose parents lived in another parish.

Cajus did right also in the second instance, namely, baptizing a child whose parents lived in his parish, but which was born in a neighboring parish. This is evident from the answer just given to the first question. In this second case, if the child had been born in a parish far distant from Cajus' parish, and he had been consulted beforehand, he should have advised the parents to have the child baptized where it was born, as, under ordinary circumstances, that would have been better for the child from every point of view, and more according to good order and the fitness of things. If, however, the parents had not consulted him beforehand, but had returned home with the child and asked him to baptize it, he was perfectly within his rights in baptizing it.

BY a certain class of modern writers Christianity is regarded as a product of natural evolution. According to these critics it is a syncretism, or growing together of ideas, doctrines, and rites which were held in solution in the Greco-Roman world during the early period of the Roman Empire. Christianity, they suppose, adopted certain elements of Judaism, and with wonderful genius mixed them with pagan doctrines and rites, took over various ideas from Roman administration and Roman law, and the Catholic Church of history finally emerged. As an instance of the theory of this process we may take the rite of Baptism. Dr. J. A. McCulloch writes: ‘ First let it be clearly understood that the ceremonial use of water in rites which are sometimes exceedingly simple, but at other times are profoundly symbolic and complex, though now inextricably connected with other opinions regarding its nature and power, has proceeded by a regular process of evolution from the simple use of water as a cleansing and purifying medium.” In such passages as this we see that evolution has become a universal dogma. Religion, like everything else, must be explained by its light; nothing remains to be done but to discover facts which illustrate the gradual process. With regard to the evolution of baptism illustrative facts are discovered in the various mystery religions of the early Christian centuries. These existed in great numbers, gradually overspreading the West from the East. There were mysteries of Isis, Osiris, Demeter, Cybele, Mithras, Attis, and many more. They had their secret doctrines and rites which were jealously guarded from the profane world. If anyone wished to become an adept he was required to submit to a process of preparation before reception. His reception was an initiation into the mysteries, and quite commonly lustration, sprinkling or bathing with water, formed part of the initiation rites. Christian baptism, then, is a rite of initiation, and one of the proofs of this assertion is that certain technical terms used in the pagan mysteries, such as illuminati, mystæ, mystagogus, were applied by some of the early Christian writers to the baptized and to the minister of the Sacrament. This theory breaks down as soon as we descend to particular details and begin to examine them in the light of history. A syncretism is a patchwork of varied and more or less discordant elements. The various parts lack cohesion and unity. They betray their different origins. In man-made religions like modernism this characteristic is conspicuous. Modernism retained certain features of Christianity, but mixed with them ideas taken from modern philosophy and modern science. As Pope Pius X said, it was a synthesis of all the heresies. On the other hand, the striking characteristic of Christianity is its wonderful harmony and unity. It is the revelation of a spiritual universe in which part fits in with part; amid infinite variety unity reigns supreme; law and order dominate the whole. This by itself is a strong argument for its divine origin.

The assertion that Christianity was gradually evolved during the first centuries of the Christian era is contrary to the facts of history. Jesus Christ is the author and finisher of our faith, and its foundation dates precisely from the year of his birth. It was not gradually evolved by impersonal agencies during a course of years. It was gradually unfolded by Jesus Christ during his lifetime on earth. But there was nothing tentative in his manner of proceeding. He showed that the divine plan was clearly mapped out in his mind from the very beginning of his life. We may illustrate this fact from the doctrine and rite of Christian baptism. Jesus Christ unfolded his plan in various ways. Sometimes he taught us by his own example, telling us implicitly what he wished us to do; he began to do and to _ teach, says the Evangelist. At other times he taught by signs like the prophets of old. A well-known example of this occurred on one occasion when the crowd pressed around him when he was teaching on the shore of the Sea of Galilee. There were two boats lying by the shore, “and going into one of the ships that was Simon’s, he desired him to draw back a little from the land. And sitting he taught the multitude out of the ship.” Catholic exegesis has always regarded that incident as typifying the Church and the perpetuity of Christ’s teaching in it. At other times he unfolded his plan by word of mouth. Let us bear in mind these different ways in which Jesus Christ preached the Gospel while we examine the passages about the rite of baptism.

The baptism administered by St John was a sign of repentance for past sin in preparation for the kingdom of God whose approach he announced. Our Lord was absolutely sinless, but God had laid our iniquities upon him; he was to be wounded for our iniquities and bruised for our sins. In his representative capacity, then, he willed to receive baptism at the hands of St John. Besides, it was part of the divine plan to make baptism by water the first of the Christian sacraments: it was to be the beginning of a Christian life, the door by which members were to be admitted into the Church and the kingdom of God. To teach us by his example, then, Christ willed to be baptized. It was part of his plan. He indicated this by what he said to St John. When he presented himself at the Jordan, St John at first refused to baptize him. ‘I ought rather to be baptized by thee,’ he said. “Suffer it now,” answered our Lord, “for so it becometh us to fulfil all justice.” Justice, righteousness is fulfilled by rendering obedience to the will of God. It was the will of God that at the beginning of his preaching and of the foundation of the Christian Church its Founder should teach by his example and receive baptism. It was part of the divine plan.

Baptism was to be a sacrament, a visible sign of invisible grace. By the divine grace which it infused into the soul sin was to be washed away, and a new spiritual life was to be communicated to it. It was to be a rebirth, not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit, as our Lord later on explained to Nicodemus. In baptism we become the adopted sons of God by grace; it is Christ himself who through baptism gives us power to be made sons of God; we are born again, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. Christ merited the forgiveness of sin and the adoption of sins through his passion and death. He communicates this grace to members of his Church in and through baptism. Through his own divine Sonship he makes us the adopted sons of God. And so when, after being baptized, he came up out of the water, the voice of the heavenly Father was heard: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”

By baptism we enter into the Church of Jesus Christ, the kingdom of heaven, which is founded in this life, but which extends and endures to life everlasting. Through sin the kingdom of heaven was closed to us, but by baptism we are cleansed from sin and heaven is again opened for our reception. As sons of God and brethren of Jesus Christ we are heirs of the kingdom of heaven, coheirs with Jesus Christ, and with him and through him we have the right to enter our Father’s house. Not without deep significance, then, in the account of our Lord’s baptism, we read: ‘ And behold, the heavens were opened.”

After our Lord’s baptism the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily shape as a dove upon him, and remained on him. The dove is a type of reconciliation, peace, grace, and love, and the work of sanctification is attributed to him. Everything that God does outside his own divine essence is the joint work of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. According to the institution of Christ, baptism is administered under the invocation of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and so, fittingly, were all three divine Persons revealed at the baptism of our Lord.

Those who are best acquainted with the Gospels will be the least likely to imagine that there is anything far-fetched or fanciful in what I have been saying. Just before his Ascension into heaven our Lord commanded his Apostles to teach all nations all that he had commanded them, and to baptize those who believed the teaching in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Faith and baptism were to be necessary conditions of salvation: ‘He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; he that believeth not shall be condemned.”

Christian baptism, then, was instituted by Jesus Christ. The spiritual effects which it produces in the soul are explicitly mentioned in the New Testament. They are foreshadowed in the Gospel account of the baptism of Jesus Christ himself. That a similar rite to which some analogous effects were ascribed belonged to several of the mystery religions of ancient paganism is interesting but not surprising. The sinfulness of man, the desire of purification, the natural effect of water in cleansing bodily stains, are universal facts which almost of themselves suggest a rite of lustration. The Christian rite is effective because it was instituted by God; man-made rites are not of avail to cleanse the soul. This is the answer which Tertullian gives to the difficulty in his treatise on Baptism. He mentions the fact that washings and sprinkling with water were used in the notorious cults of Isis and Mithras which were still in full vogue in his day. But he says those waters were barren, while Christian baptism produces children for God.

Some of the early Christian writers applied to baptism the technical terms used for initiation into the pagan mysteries. This is not surprising, the resemblance was obvious, and at that time there was no danger of the literary device being misunderstood. The wide gulf between the Christian religion and pagan cults was too profound and too obvious to be overlooked.