Capacity and intention for Baptism

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.

When Baptism is in question, those are considered adults who enjoy the use of reason (canon 745, § 2). Moreover:

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).

Who is the subject of baptism, and what are its necessary dispositions? - Resp. The subject of baptism is every and only man as wayfarer, not yet baptized. - As regards dispositions, in infants Christ and the Church supply their will. But in adults, for validly receiving baptism there is required at least a habitual explicit or at least implicit intention. In the same adults, for licitly receiving baptism there is required faith and penance. - L. 139; La Croix l. 6, p. 1, n. 60; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 79, a. 3 ad 2; 4 Dist. 6, q. 1, a. 3 ad 5; E. M.

You will resolve: 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 at some time used reason, more probably baptism is not valid unless before insanity they asked for it. In practice, however, these would be baptized conditionally, both because it is not plainly clear that they did not ask for baptism, and also because according to many it suffices if someone had the will of receiving all things necessary for salvation. Cf. 383. - If it is doubtful whether an infant lives, he is to be baptized conditionally.

Hence theologians rightly judge generally that all aborted fetuses are always to be baptized conditionally, if they are alive, provided putrefaction certainly does not appear. - Here it is fitting to add that very many are the cases of infants who are born in a state of apparent death, and that it has happened several times that these infants, even several hours after birth, have been recalled to life. Wherefore these too should be baptized, although no trace of life appears in them, provided again that putrefaction certainly does not appear. - When it is doubted whether a monster is a man, it is to be baptized absolutely if the head is human, although the members are bestial; but conditionally if the head is bestial and the members human. - But if it has doubled members of a man, and it is doubted whether it is one man or two, a double baptism is to be conferred, one absolutely, the other conditionally, in that part in which the members appear more imperfect. Hence, if there are two heads and two breasts, each one is to be baptized separately; if there is one head and two breasts, or two heads and one breast, baptism is to be conferred absolutely on one head and then baptism is to be conferred conditionally either on the other breast or on the other head.

And if there are two breasts, and it does not appear which one pertains to the head, after baptism upon the head, each breast is to be baptized conditionally. - A mole or fleshy mass which comes forth from natural abortion or from surgical extraction, without any disposition of organs or sign of motion and life, is not to be baptized. - Roman Ritual; L. 125; Capellmann, Medicina Pastoralis, Aachen, Latin ed. 4, p. 114 ff.

Is it licit to baptize an unwilling adult? Must an adult receive baptism at once after he has known its obligation? What about adults among unbelievers concerning whose will there is no certainty? - Resp. To the first: In the negative, and this is grave. C. Sicut 9, de Iud. et Sarrac. - To the second: "Someone is not bound to receive baptism immediately after he has the purpose of baptism, so that he would sin mortally unless he is baptized immediately, nor is there any determined time beyond which, if he defers baptism, he incurs mortal sin." St. Thomas Suppl. q. 6, a. 5. Yet since anyone is bound to enter the Church which he has known as soon as he conveniently can, and baptism is the gate of the Church, there follows from that former obligation the obligation of receiving baptism as soon as he conveniently can, although the time of delay to grave sin cannot be determined.

To the third: It is not licit to confer baptism on unbelievers even conditionally, if no positive sign is had of their will to receive baptism, although they are dying. But they will be able to be baptized conditionally if, all the circumstances of things having been examined, it is prudently judged that they wish baptism, or have desired it, or have renounced idolatry. Collection of S. C. de P. F. n. 582, 585, etc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

133. Who is considered an adult. In relation to receiving baptism, those who after the seventh year of age enjoy the use of reason are considered adults; but under the name of little children or infants come those not yet seven years old, and with them are numbered persons insane from infancy, at whatever age they may be.¹⁷⁵

For a grave and reasonable cause, the local Ordinary can permit the ceremonies prescribed for the baptism of infants to be employed in the baptism of adults.¹⁷⁶

The baptism of adults is accustomed to occur in two cases: 1. when an infidel embraces the Catholic religion; 2. when a heretic concerning whose reception of baptism a doubt exists returns to the bosom of the Church.

¹⁷⁵ Code of Canon Law, c. 745, § 2.

¹⁷⁶ Ibid., c. 755, § 2.

134. 1. An adult infidel who believes the truth of the Catholic religion must be baptized as soon as possible. The reason is evident. For everyone is bound by divine law to embrace the true religion and the Church, in which baptism holds a very excellent place. It is not established, however, what delay of baptism made without a reasonable cause is a mortal sin. Concerning this matter St. Thomas¹⁷⁷ writes: "A person is not bound to receive baptism immediately after he has the intention of baptism, such that he sins mortally unless he is baptized immediately; nor is there any determinate time beyond which, if he delays baptism, he incurs mortal sin. But it can happen that in delaying baptism there will be a mortal sin, or there will not be; and this must be weighed from the cause of the delay." From these words it follows that for a reasonable cause it is lawful to delay the baptism of an adult even for a long time. Such reasonable causes are, for example, instruction in the Catholic religion which must be given and perfected, and most grave persecutions to be feared here and now. Therefore, for example, the baptism of a twelve-year-old Jewish boy could licitly be delayed until a more mature age if his parents would otherwise cast him out of the house and thrust him into misery. But when baptism of water must be delayed, baptism of desire must be received immediately, and all proximate dangers of perversion are to be eliminated according to one's ability, as was already said above, n. 127. It was already said above, n. 126, that the baptism of infants is not to be delayed at all.

¹⁷⁷ Suppl., q. 6, a. 5.

135. Three conditions are required in an adult infidel receiving baptism, namely, intention, faith, and penance. The first condition is required for the valid reception of baptism, but the following two conditions are required for its licit reception.

Therefore, for the valid reception of baptism, intention is required in the adult, which ordinarily must be explicit; an implicit intention,¹⁷⁸ however, suffices if the infidel to be baptized is dying and deprived of his senses. The minister of baptism must inquire concerning the existence of a true intention in the recipient and procure moral certitude for himself. Thus at least if the baptism of an adult who is outside danger of death is in question. But if the adult infidel is dying, he can be baptized under condition, provided that some probability concerning his true intention is had.¹⁷⁹ For the sacraments are for men, and in order to save a dying man it is lawful to baptize him under condition, although he is doubtfully disposed. Nevertheless, it is not lawful to presume the due intention of receiving baptism in a pagan deprived of his senses. Hence the Holy Office established on March 30, 1898, that baptism should be administered to dying Muslims deprived of their senses only "if they previously gave signs of wishing to be baptized." Therefore, it does not seem sufficient that they previously led a good life if they nevertheless showed not even some inclination toward the Christian religion. The contrary opinion, which asserts: "There seems to be no dying person deprived of his senses, whether in a Christian region or an infidel region, who, scandal being excluded, cannot be baptized under condition," is difficult to reconcile with the response of the Holy Office just cited and with the Code of Canon Law, c. 754, § 3.

¹⁷⁸ Cf. above, n. 87.

¹⁷⁹ Cf. Code of Canon Law, c. 752.

136. For the licit reception of baptism, moreover, there are required, as was said:

a) Faith, that is, knowledge of at least four truths of faith, namely, that God exists, that God rewards, that God is incarnate, and that God is triune in Persons. Hence on January 25, 1703, the Holy Office decreed that a missionary is not to baptize a dying infidel who is not altogether incapable unless he has first explained to him the mysteries of faith which are necessary by a necessity of means, especially the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation.¹⁸⁰ The reason is that the Savior said: "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved."¹⁸¹

b) Penance, that is, at least attrition, according to the admonition of the Apostles: "Do penance, and let every one of you be baptized."¹⁸² The reason is that no personal sin is remitted unless the man first detests it. But an adult pagan always has personal sins unless God has miraculously preserved him. Nevertheless, there is no need of confession, because all previous sins are remitted through baptism itself. "If, however, any of those to be baptized wished from their devotion to confess their sins, their confession should be heard, not in order that satisfaction be imposed upon them, but so that spiritual instruction for life against their habitual sins might be delivered to them."¹⁸³ An infidel who refuses to abandon some evil custom is to be barred from baptism. Therefore Alexander VII¹⁸⁴ already established that henceforth no one should be admitted to baptism who had not entirely put off the old man and pagan morals. The Holy Office forbids the baptism of a pagan who has not cast his concubines out of his house,¹⁸⁵ or of one who has the custom of going about with his body entirely naked.¹⁸⁶ On the other hand, the same Holy Office permits girls who are to be sold and betrothed to pagans and polygamists to be baptized, provided that they firmly resolve not to sin and rather to die than to be defiled.¹⁸⁷

¹⁸⁰ Collect. de Prop. Fide, n. 254; cf. also Holy Office, March 30, 1898.

¹⁸¹ Mark 16:16.

¹⁸² Acts 2:38.

¹⁸³ S. theol. 3, q. 68, a. 6.

¹⁸⁴ January 18, 1658 (Collect. de Prop. Fide, n. 129).

¹⁸⁵ May 10, 1703 (ibid., n. 256).

¹⁸⁶ June 4, 1851 (ibid., n. 1061).

¹⁸⁷ September 14, 1892 (ibid., n. 1813).

137. 2. Adult heretics returning to the bosom of the Church must be baptized under condition if there is doubt concerning the baptism they received. Certainly, the Church acknowledges the validity of baptism conferred by heretics, provided that the essential conditions of matter, form, and intention were observed. Therefore, she has always reproved the custom of rebaptizing indiscriminately all who return from heresy. "But in the conversion of heretics, from whatever place or from whatever sect they have come, inquiry is to be made concerning the validity of the baptism received in heresy. Therefore, an examination having been instituted in individual cases, if it has been discovered that [baptism] was either null or conferred invalidly, they are to be baptized absolutely. But if, according to the circumstances of times and places, after the investigation has been performed, nothing is discovered either for validity or invalidity, or if a probable doubt concerning the validity of the baptism still remains, then they are to be baptized secretly under condition. Finally, if it is established that it was valid, they are to be received only to abjuration and profession of faith."¹⁸⁸ Since baptism is so necessary a sacrament, and since a defect of faith is so widespread among heretical ministers, who consequently do not take much care concerning the correct application of the form to the matter and concerning forming the intention of doing what the Church does, it will often be better and safer to baptize conditionally those who return from heresy.¹⁸⁹ Before such heretics are baptized under condition, however, they are bound not only sufficiently to know the truths of faith and to elicit attrition or contrition concerning sins committed, but they must also confess all the sins of their past life.

An adult heretic who is dying and deprived of his senses seems able to be baptized under condition, provided that every scandal is avoided. For baptism received by him in heresy in present times is truly doubtful, as is evident from what was said above. Moreover, it is deservedly presumed that he, as a Christian by desire, now has the intention of receiving valid baptism, which is so necessary a means of salvation.

Admonition. "It is becoming that both the priest who is about to baptize adults and the adults themselves, if they are well, should be fasting. Unless grave and urgent causes prevent it, the baptized adult should immediately assist at the sacrifice of the Mass and receive Holy Communion."¹⁹⁰

¹⁸⁸ Holy Office, November 20, 1878 (Collect. de Prop. Fide, n. 1504).

¹⁸⁹ Instruction of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, July 26, 1845. Cf. also above, n. 105.

¹⁹⁰ Code of Canon Law, c. 753.

138. Scholion. On the confession of a new convert who is baptized under condition. There are certain theologians, among whom are Bucceroni,¹⁹¹ D'Annibale, Génicot, and Cappello, who think that a heretic who, because of a doubtfully received baptism, is baptized again under condition is not bound to the confession of sins. For if the first baptism was actually invalid, then confession and absolution likewise are altogether invalid, since they cannot extend to sins committed before valid baptism. Therefore, a priest baptizing such a heretic under condition and also absolving him acts, as it were, illogically; for he supposes the first baptism to be invalid, and for that reason baptizes again; but at the same time he supposes the same baptism to be valid, and consequently absolves from sins committed after that baptism. Therefore, in every event he administers one or the other sacrament invalidly. For if the first baptism was valid, the second is invalid; but if the first baptism was invalid, the sacramental absolution is invalid.

Nevertheless, the contrary practice is altogether to be observed. For the Holy Office decreed both in the year 1715 and on December 17, 1868, that confession is to be required from new converts.¹⁹² The Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith established the same on July 12, 1869, saying at the same time that the Decree of the Holy Office constitutes a universal law and that it is not lawful to teach the contrary opinion.¹⁹³ The reason why the Holy Office prescribes confession and conditional absolution after the conditional baptism of a new convert is greater security. Certainly, either the baptism or the absolution is rendered ineffective in this case, but the remission of sins is obtained more securely; nor is irreverence offered to the sacraments, because with the best intention they are administered under condition in a case in which sufficient certitude cannot be had.

For the sake of uniformity, the following manner and order of proceeding in the reception of new converts was assigned by the Holy Office for North America on July 20, 1859:¹⁹⁴ 1. abjuration of heresy and profession of faith; 2. conditional baptism; 3. confession with conditional absolution. The same order is prescribed in the Cologne Ritual¹⁹⁵ and seems very simple and commendable everywhere in the world. Another, somewhat more complicated order is admitted by the Holy Office in 1875, namely: 1. confession; 2. conditional baptism; 3. resumption of the confession in its chief points and conditional absolution.

¹⁹¹ Anal. eccl. V, 230; *Instit. Theol. mor.*⁶, de poen., n. 672.

¹⁹² Collect. de Prop. Fide, nn. 286 and 1338.

¹⁹³ Collect. de Prop. Fide, n. 1338, note. Notwithstanding these decisions, certain authors, for example, Bucceroni, Génicot, Cornelisse, Arregui, and Ojetti, think that the contrary opinion is probable. Thus it is stated in Génicot, Theol. mor. instit. II, n. 259: "Nevertheless, with Ballerini-Palmieri (Opus theol. I, n. 28), D'Annibale (Summula Theol. mor. III, n. 301, note 3), and Bucceroni (De poenit., n. 12), we judge that the opinion of many of the older authors, for example, Lacroix, De consc., l. 6, P. 1, n. 223, who deny this obligation [of confession], remains probable whenever a probable doubt concerning the conferral or validity of baptism remains. For it is supported by a valid reason: in this hypothesis the obligation of confessing sins probably remitted through the conditional baptism just received is uncertain." It must be admitted that this opinion is a logical application of probabilism; but that it cannot be reduced to practice follows from the response of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith issued on July 12, 1869, and afterward published in 1899. These are the words: "In the Letter of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith of July 12, 1869, to the Archbishop of Quebec, these things are contained concerning the matter: As regards the doubt proposed by Your Excellency touching the sacramental confession to be required from new converts, it must be observed that the response of the past year, although given only at the request of the bishops of England, contains a universal law, and therefore binds not only in England but also in other regions. Hence it is evident that it can in no way be permitted that an opinion contrary to the aforesaid decision be taught." Cf. Lehmkuhl, Theol. mor. II, nn. 424 sqq.

¹⁹⁴ Collect. de Prop. Fide, n. 1178.

¹⁹⁵ 1900, tit. 2, c. 2, n. 5.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Query 4° Are exposed infants to be baptized?

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

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

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

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

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

Nevertheless note the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore the Baptism of all these is rightly presumed doubtful.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"A) Abjuration, or Profession of Faith.

"B) Conditionated Baptism.

"C) Sacramental Confession with conditionated Absolution.

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

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

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

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

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

S. Th. III, q. 68, a. 3, 8, and 12.

143. Principle I. Adults are bound to seek and receive Baptism as soon as they morally can, i.e. worthily and conveniently. - For throughout his whole life man ought to turn himself and tend toward God, his supernatural end, according to the mode prescribed by God, i.e. in His true visible Church. But Baptism is the ordinary means necessary of itself so that man may be converted perfectly to God, his supernatural end (n. 133-134), and it is the means altogether necessary so that he may enter the true Church. Therefore man is bound to receive Baptism as soon as he morally can, and he cannot put it off from day to day (cf. Council of Trent, sess. 7, can. 12).

But since Baptism, as to its principal effect, can be supplied by desire, it is not to be conferred upon adults altogether immediately; rather, for the sake of probation, it is fitting "to defer it until some certain time: 1. indeed, for the caution of the Church, lest she be deceived by conferring the sacrament upon those approaching feignedly; 2. for the utility of those who are baptized, because they need some space of time in order that they may be fully instructed concerning the faith and exercised in those things which pertain to the Christian life; 3. ...for a certain reverence of the sacrament, while at the chief solemnities, namely Easter and Pentecost, men are admitted to Baptism, and thus receive the sacrament more devoutly."

"Yet this delay is to be omitted for two reasons: 1. indeed, when those who are to be baptized appear perfectly instructed in the faith and suitable for Baptism, as Philip immediately baptized the eunuch (Acts VIII), and Peter baptized Cornelius and those who were with him (Acts X); 2. on account of illness or some danger of death... But he sins who defers receiving Baptism beyond the time appointed by the Church, unless from a necessary cause, and with the license of the prelates of the Church" (a. 3).

The sin is grave by its genus, and therefore he sins mortally not only who defers out of contempt, but also who defers out of negligence without a reasonable cause; not only one who defers until the end of life, which the Fathers gravely reprehended, but also one who defers for a notable time: for prudently estimating this in practice, circumstances are to be considered, especially the cause of the delay (Suppl., q. 6, a. 5).

But the necessity of deferring somewhat can exist: instruction in religion to be completed, a grave evil here and now to be avoided, a very grave persecution to be feared, as if a minor would be cast out of the house by his father and thus reduced to misery. Yet then faith and Baptism of the Spirit must be received at once.

144. Principle II. In adults, besides the will of receiving Baptism, there is regularly required due instruction concerning the mysteries of faith and sorrow for sins. - As can. 752, § 1 says: "An adult, unless knowing and willing and thoroughly instructed, is not to be baptized; besides, he is to be admonished to be sorry for his sins."

And so: 1. For the validity of the sacrament and the impression of the character, there is required an intention, or positive will, at least habitual and implicit, of receiving Baptism (a. 7), and a general will of salvation is not sufficient (n. 93).

2. For liceity and for obtaining the grace of the sacrament, there are required as dispositions (Council of Trent, sess. 6, c. 6):

a) assent of faith, and therefore instruction in the principal mysteries, even of the Most Holy Trinity and the Incarnation (Holy Office, January 25 and May 10, 1703), and exercise in the obligations of the Christian life; without which faith, moreover, supernatural sorrow and the remission of sins are impossible (a. 8);

b) a movement of hope toward eternal life, and toward grace and the remission of sins to be obtained in Baptism; without which hope sorrow for sins is not possible;

c) true and sincere supernatural attrition, appreciatively supreme, concerning all one's own sins, at least mortal sins, and at least habitual, i.e. once had and not retracted. Therefore the sacrament is not to be conferred on sinners who have the purpose of persisting in sin: "1. because through Baptism men are incorporated into Christ...; but so long as someone has the will of sinning, he cannot be joined to Christ... 2. because in the works of Christ and of the Church nothing ought to be done in vain; but that is in vain which does not attain the end to which it is ordered: but no one having the will of sinning can at the same time be cleansed from sin... 3. because in sacramental signs there ought not to be any falsity: a sign is false when the thing signified does not correspond to it; but from the fact that someone presents himself to be washed through Baptism, it is signified that he disposes himself for interior washing, which does not happen in one who has the purpose of persisting in sin" (a. 4).

Nevertheless satisfactory works are not to be imposed on those to be baptized, because Baptism frees from every penalty (a. 5); nor is a special exterior confession of sins to be made to the priest, but an interior one suffices, and that general one which they make by renouncing Satan and all his pomps and works. "Yet if any to be baptized, from their own devotion, should wish to confess their sins, their confession should be heard, not so that satisfaction might be imposed on them, but so that spiritual instruction of life might be handed on to them against their customary sins" (a. 6).

145. Principle III. In a case of necessity it suffices in an adult that he show in some way that he gives assent to the principal mysteries of faith and seriously promises that he will observe the commandments of the Christian religion; - indeed, if in danger of death he cannot even seek the sacrament, he is to be baptized absolutely if he certainly manifested an intention of receiving it, and under condition if he manifested it in some probable way. - Thus according to can. 752, § 2 and 3.

If he has in no way manifested the will of receiving it, Baptism cannot be conferred upon him. But if afterward he recovers, his instruction will have to be completed; and if doubt concerning the value of the Baptism conferred remains (on account, for example, of an intention merely presumed), he will have to be baptized again under condition.

146. Corollaries. - 1. The insane and the furious are not to be baptized, unless they have been such from birth or before attaining the use of reason: for then they are to be baptized as infants (can. 754, § 1), to whom they are equated (can. 745, § 2).

But those who have had the use of reason are to be treated as adults (a. 12). Hence a) if they have lucid intervals, while they are of sound mind, let them be baptized if they wish; b) besides, when danger of death is imminent, they are to be baptized if, before they became insane, they showed a desire of receiving Baptism (can. 754, § 2 and 3).

These things also hold concerning those who suffer from lethargy or phrenesis: only when awake and willing are they to be baptized; but if danger of death threatens, they are to be baptized if before the lethargy or phrenesis they had a desire of receiving Baptism (ibid., § 4).

2. Those doubtfully insane and doubtfully adult are not of themselves to be baptized, but Baptism is to be deferred until they are more fully developed; in a case of necessity, if it is impossible to wait, let them be baptized under condition (Holy Office, July 18, 1892).

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.

Paul, an Anglican converted to the Catholic faith and raised to the priesthood, desired nothing more than to receive his father into the Church. Whenever he spoke with his father about the Catholic faith, the latter always put an end to the discussion by saying: “Neither do I wish nor do I not wish to be converted; but if it will be a consolation to you, you may baptize me before death,” for he had been only doubtfully baptized as an infant. One day Paul received word that his father was gravely ill; when he hastened to him, he found that he had already died within the space of an hour. Without delay, after his father had been baptized conditionally, he absolved him and likewise anointed him conditionally. Hence it is asked:

1. What intention is required in the subject of the sacraments?

2. How can apparent death be distinguished from real death?

3. What is to be said of the case?

1. What sort of intention is required in the subject of the sacraments?

A neutral intention is not sufficient. In order that Baptism may be certainly valid the adult to be baptized must have at least an habitual and express intention to receive the sacrament. An implicit intention will probably

. CASES OF CONSCIENCE suffice. For Penance and Matrimony a virtual intention is necessary. A general or implicit intention is sufficient for the other sacraments.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, p. 42 f.

2. How can apparent death be distinguished from real death?

The absence of vital functions, breathing, pulse, cadaveric spots on the body, and the loss of their luster by the eyes, are more or less certain signs of death. Unequivocal signs of death are putrefaction, and cadaveric rigidity, though the latter does not always appear so as to be perceptible.²

2 Capellmann, Pastoral Medicine, p. 201: Antonelli, Med. Pastoralis, vol. ii, nn. 568 ff.

3. The case. Paul, a convert and a priest, wished greatly to convert his father, whose baptism as an infant was doubtful. After talking about conversion the father used to close the conversation by saying: “ I am indifferent about conversion, but if it will be any consolation to you, you may baptize me before death.” One day Paul got a message that his father was seriously ill and he hastened off and found that he had died within an hour. He at once administered baptism, penance, and Extreme Unction conditionally. The father was not in fit dispositions to be received into the Church during his life; he had not the requisite faith. However, he had consented to be baptized before death, and was presumably in good faith. According to recent authorities real death, which is the separation of soul and body, does not take place for some time after apparent death. The length of the period between apparent and real death, according to these authorities varies in different cases;

one or two hours is a safe mean reckoning. Paul is not to be blamed for using this opinion and doing all that he could do for his father’s salvation. For although his father had no right to the sacraments inasmuch as he was not a visible member of the Church, yet it is a probable opinion that he had the requisite dispositions for being made one and for receiving the sacraments under condition at death.

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.

In the hospital at X. there was a very sick man, whom the physicians had given up. According to their diagnosis, he had at most only two more days to live. The graveness of the situation had been explained to the patient, but in spite of all the hospital chaplain found himself unable to induce the patient to receive the last Sacraments. He was stubborn and there was no use arguing. The zealous chaplain had just left the room after another vain attempt, made in the presence of the two attending physicians, to convert the unfortunate man. One of the physicians was a clever hypnotist, and had already alleviated our patient's suffering many times by hypnosis. He had just been about to put the patient once more in hypnotic sleep when the chaplain came. Hardly had the latter left the room when the physician approached the sick man's bed and put him gently to sleep. When, however, hypnosis had entered the physician suggested to the sick man, after some soothing thoughts, the firm determination in five minutes after his awakening to have the chaplain called and to receive the last Sacraments, with a sincere and contrite heart. The doctor hastened the procedure and after hardly two minutes he caused the patient to awaken. As usual after a hypnotic sleep, the latter expressed his gratification at the relief from his pains. But not only that. Exactly five minutes after waking he glanced around the room looking for the chaplain, and had him sent for. The latter responded, and the patient asked to receive the last Sacraments. The surprise and inward joy of the good priest may be imagined. Without any trouble the priest attended to the man, and by the following morning the latter had journeyed into eternity. What are we to think of this strange conversion? In other words: (1) Did the patient receive the last Sacraments validly? (2) Would the priest have been allowed to administer the Sacraments, if he had been told of the hypnotic character of the process of conversion? (3) Was the physician allowed to hypnotize the sick man and (4) was it proper to suggest the idea of conversion? We will answer these four questions one by one.

^* By P. N. Katzemich, D.D.

1. Did the patient receive the last Sacraments validly, i. e., with profit?

Unfortunately we can not answer this important question unqualifiedly in the affirmative. The objective fact is not clear enough. The chaplain had no idea of the hypnotism that had taken place, nor of the hypnotic suggestion of conversion; he therefore regarded the sick man's conversion as genuine, without examining further into the matter. The physician, however, believed that his suggestion had succeeded; he was pleased to have rendered the patient a good service in this manner, and to have enriched the science of hypnosis by an interesting experiment. He gave no thought to the question of validity of the Sacraments so received. The thought that the attitude of the patient might perhaps be independent of the suggestion of conversion did not enter his mind. Thus it happened that he, neither, examined more closely into the real facts. The sick man, feeble and exhausted, said no more about his "conversion." Had he been asked in his normal condition whether he had become converted and why, or how he came to think of sending for the chaplain, and receiving the last Sacraments, then the true condition of affairs would certainly, or at least in all probability, have been ascertained.

As the case is, there is nothing left for us but to reckon with probabilities, and to say that the patient probably, most probably, indeed, received the last Sacraments validly, that is to say with profit.

First of all, the suddenness and unexpectedness of the conversion must not be allowed to startle us. A man may be a hardened sinner and reject all priestly assistance, and nevertheless become all at once a ready penitent. God has in His power also the heart of the perverse man, and knows how to lead and stir it in such manner, that against all human expectations, it heeds the divine call to grace, and instantly forsakes the path of sin. Examples of this kind are offered us in the repentant thief upon the cross, St. Paul the apostle, and many other saints.

Against this there arises the justifiable doubt of the validity of the Sacraments as soon as we bring the sudden and unexpected conversion in connection with the preceding hypnotic state and the suggestion "to send for the chaplain five minutes after awakening, and to receive the Sacraments."

It is well-known that hypnotism transports the subject into an irresponsible state of mind; the same holds good for the so-called post-hypnotic hallucinations, i. e., for that state in which the hypnotized person at a fixed time acts upon a suggestion received during the hypnotic state. The physician, on his part, had done everything to produce just such post-hypnotic state, and it looks very much as if with success.

There arises consequently, the question whether the patient in casu was of sane mind or not when receiving the Sacraments. If he was, then he received the holy Sacraments validly, and with profit; if he was not, then his conversion was an unconscious exterior act, and an unwilling one, an actus hominis, the value of which can not be thought of. It is not impossible that through hypnotic suggestion a man may be brought even against his will to send for a priest, to request of him the last Sacraments and exteriorly to do everything that the idea suggests virtually and formally. In our patient it is of course remarkable and strange that his actions after the hypnotic sleep corresponded so exactly to the hypnotic suggestion; exactly five minutes after awakening from the hypnotism he caused the chaplain to be called and asked him for the Sacraments. Moreover, it is apparent that the suggested alleviation of pain was really accomplished, for the patient spoke of an alleviation that had taken place. The physician, however, had suggested both, the idea of alleviation and the one of conversion at one and the same time, so that the accomplishment of the one leads us to infer the attainment of the other. Furthermore, as at short terms even apathetic suggestions succeed, as experience proves, and in our case the time was only five minutes, the suggestion of conversion may actually have been considered a success. Besides, the diametrically opposed behavior within a few minutes of the patient in regard to one and the same idea is most plausibly explained by regarding his first attitude as the conscious one; the second, on the contrary, as unconscious, therefore an involuntary and irresponsible one. These are the chief arguments that can be advanced for the patient's unsound state of mind. They are not irrefutable, although we can not deny to them some probability. Let us place against these arguments the evidence that would point to a normal state of mind. First of all, it is very doubtful, and not very probable, that the suggestion of the idea of conversion actually succeeded. It is a fact vouched for by medical science, that a great number even of such subjects as are particularly good "media" are far from being susceptible to all sorts of hypnotic suggestions; for the most part they respond only to sympathetic ideas, i. e., such are agreeable to their tastes, to their sense of honor, to their conscience, or their temperament. The idea of conversion was extremely distasteful to our patient; he had obstinately resisted it all the time up to about seven minutes ago; he detested it, and would go to perdition rather than subject to it. We may, therefore, suppose that he had not received it at all. The speedy and superficial manner of the suggestion gives support to this argument. Experience teaches that the hypnotist must usually suggest an obnoxious idea repeatedly in order that it may be entertained, two, three, four times; indeed there have been instances where it was necessary to repeat fifty and sixty times before it succeeded. With our patient there was no repetition nor an attempt at special emphasis. Again, there appear as a rule more or less violent signs of reluctance as a result of distasteful suggestion; the subject resists, and struggles against it by word and demeanor, and if the suggestion is further urged, the subject not infrequently falls into fits. There was not the slightest excitement apparent in our patient. He offered no objection, he showed no displeasure. Hence it appears that he remained unresponsive to the idea of conversion, and that he was in no wise moved by it.

The suggestion as such seemed, therefore, unsuccessful; therewith, too, the injurious influence of the suggestion upon the mind was removed, or rather was not present.

Another reason for assuming a normal mind is found in the fact, that the compliance with a successful suggestion is completely prevented by a contrary psycho-physiological nature of the subject. The received suggestion operates adequately only when its original relation to the nervous system remains unchanged. With our patient, not even the reception of the suggestion as such can be shown with certainty; still less its efficaciousness.

On the other hand, however, the approach of death was probably not without a special influence upon the nervous system and ideas of the patient; so that a complete failure of the suggestion may well be supposed. In that case the patient's state of mind was, of course, not at all influenced by the idea suggested.

The efficacy of the simultaneously suggested alleviation of pain does not prove a great deal; it is not even certain that this alleviation was actually to be ascribed to the suggestion; many sick persons feel stronger and better just before death without any suggestion whatsoever. Furthermore, the idea of alleviation is distinctly different from the idea of conversion, and stands in an opposite relation to the patient; he cherishes the one idea, and hates the other; from the success and efficacy of the one does not at all follow the efficacy of the other. The experience of hypnotists confirms this.

Finally, we must remember that hypnotic, or post-hypnotic, hallucinations do not always preclude a conscious state of mind. Even in natural sleep we make a distinction between light and sound sleep, and only in the latter the conscious state of the mind is absent. It is similar in hypnotism, its influence upon the subject's mind stands in proportion to the efficacy of the idea suggested, and this again upon the disposition of the nervous system and the skill of the hypnotist. The fact of positive disobedience, righteous indignation, and open contradiction of many subjects to whom are made silly or unlawful suggestions, proves that subjects have in their hypnotic sleep a flickering of consciousness and hence a momentary sound state of mind; at least those signs of reluctance are not always and solely attributable to the "natural instinct!" Even if we would in the case of our patient acknowledge the success of the suggestion itself and of the working of the suggestion, there will still remain a well-founded doubt as to whether and to what degree consciousness was disturbed.

His action is more easily attributed to a conscious and determined change of will than to post-hypnotic hallucination. To the working of the hypnotic suggestion there were opposed considerably greater difficulties than to a sudden conscious change of mind. In the latter case it only required a motio congrua of divine grace to change the will; in the former, a motio congrua of the hypnotist, which under the circumstances was hardly possible.

In view of these reasons, speaking for the sound state of mind of our patient, we are justified in saying that the greater probability points to the intrinsic genuineness of the "conversion." It appears therefore to have been a conscious, interiorly willed and freely contemplated act rather than an only apparent and mechanical one. Did however, the sick man in those moments act as a free-willed man, then he in reality has complied with all the conditions required for the validity, i. e., the fruitful reception of the holy Sacraments; he had the intention of receiving the Sacraments; he was sorry for his sins, and confessed them formally; and, therefore, the Sacrament of Penance was validly received and consequently fruitful; the same is to be said of the Holy Viaticum and Extreme Unction, as in regard to them there are offered no other difficulties.

2. Was the chaplain allowed to administer the Sacraments to the patient. had he been aware of the hypnotic suggestion of conversion?

We answer in the affirmative. Sacramenta propter homines, say the theologians. One may and must administer those Sacraments absolutely or relatively necessary for man's salvation, to the patient, so long as there is some probability for their valid reception. As we have seen, such a probability was actually present in casu. Of course the chaplain properly considering a possible invalidity and consequent danger of irreverence to the holy Sacraments, would have given absolution conditionally; for “it is certain that in a case in which there is an extreme necessity of one’s neighbor and no matter is available except doubtful matter, then the minister not only may, but is bound under grave obligation, to administer the sacrament to him conditionally,” says St. Alphonsus (Theol. Moral. I. V. Tr. I. n. 39).

The consideration that the chaplain should not thus participate consciously in a hypnotic experiment, is of little import here. For the chaplain would have participated in casu only materially, but not formally, in the hypnotic experiment, as he would not have come on account of the experiment, but in order to save, if possible, the soul of the hypnotized for heaven. Furthermore the deliberate participation in hypnotic experiments can not be condemned as absolutely unseemly or sinful. There are cases where hypnotism is lawful; and in these one may lawfully participate.

3. Was the physician allowed to hypnotize the patient?

This question can not be confirmed unconditionally. Hypnotism has been vehemently combated; it has been condemned as injurious to health, and as unlawful; in this manner it has been presented, for instance, in the Civiltà Cattolica, 1886, and in P. Franco's, S.J., L'ipnotismo tornato di moda, Roma, 1886; on the other hand, however, there have not been wanting earnest and able advocates; as for instance P. Coconnier, O.P., in L'hypnotisme franc, Paris, 1898, XIIme edition. The supreme ecclesiastical tribunal answered to the question, as to whether life-magnetism be lawful, in a rescript of June 23, 1840, that it is "not forbidden, if all deceit and superstition, expressed or silent invocation of Satan, and immoral aims are excluded." That which went under the name of life-magnetism in the middle of last century, bears in our days the name of hypnotism. The Sacred Congregation Inquis. therefore does not prohibit hypnotism as such. One should compare this with the decision of the Holy Office, of 28th July, 1847, and the papal encyclical to the bishops, of the 4th August, 1856, also the answer of the Holy Office, of 26th July, 1899, in which it is decreed in reference to a physician taking part in medical application of hypnotism in the case of sick children: With regard to new experiments, if there is question of acts which certainly exceed the powers of nature, they are not permitted; but if this is doubtful, after a prior declaration that one wishes to have no part in preternatural compacts, it may be tolerated, provided the danger of scandal is absent.

It must be conceded that in hypnotism very remarkable and strange phenomena appear, but all these are by no means a criterion of diabolical influence. Calm research and psycho-physiological science have an explanation in a purely natural way of most hypnotical phenomena hitherto known. The susceptibility of the nervous system for exterior influences, and the close alliance of soul and body, form a sphere in which the ability of the hypnotist is enabled to work amazing things, without in any manner needing the co-operation of spirits.

Unfortunately it is true, that hypnotism has many times injured the health of subjects, either through the weakening of the memory, of the reason, or of the will power, or by producing diseased conditions. The culpability for these lamentable conditions, however, rests almost always upon the imprudence and awkwardness of the hypnotist who hypnotizes persons without proper regard to their psychical and somatical condition. If hypnotists would set to work more cautiously and conscientiously, and if they would not put the subjects in sleep too often nor too long, if they would not vex them with distasteful suggestions, then the evil after effects would either altogether cease or at least grow perceptibly less. At any rate injury to health is not necessarily a result of hypnotism and it has not been proven that hypnotism as such is detrimental to health.

Although it may be advisable to be somewhat skeptical in accepting the triumphal reports of the advocates of hypnotism, yet it can not be denied that hypnotism has secured a prominent place in the medical science. It is claimed that much good has been already done with its aid and that it has either removed, or at least alleviated diseased conditions. It is argued that it would be unjust to condemn it as the sworn enemy of the human race, and to banish it from off the earth. Still, this commendation of hypnotism must be greatly modified. The injuries which hypnotism works or may work are so numerous and so great, that from the standpoint of common sense alone, it must be designated as unlawful and improper.

It is easily understood why the medical faculty of Vienna, the health boards of Milan, and of Rome, the College of Medicine at Brussels, the international Congress for experimental and therapeutical hypnotism at Paris (1889) and others, recommended to their respective governments the prohibition of public demonstrations of hypnotism, which was usually done. And it would be proper, too, if so-called scientific application of hypnotism would be entirely forbidden. Exception might be made in cases where hypnotism is employed for healing purposes, and this only on the following conditions: (1) That no other remedy was known or available; (2) That the probable harm would be exceeded by the benefit to be gained; (3) That it be applied by an experienced and conscientious physician, precluding all risk and misuse; (4) That the patient agree to it. Such case will not easily present itself. For this reason the use of hypnotism is mostly considered by the authorities as unlawful (cf. Ballerini-Palmieri, Villada, Bucceroni, Aertnys, Cl. Marc, etc.); while others permit its use as a specific under the restrictions as above-mentioned (cf. Lehmkuhl, D'Annibale, Ojetti, after D'Annibale and Lapponi, Noldin).

The person who lets himself or herself be hypnotized, surrenders to the will of the hypnotist for the term of the hypnotic sleep and the latter may do as he pleases with the subject; it is also unlawful to renounce reason and free will as done in hypnotism. These are the chief arguments against hypnotism besides those dealt with above. When reading the accounts of what hypnotists have attempted with sleeping subjects, one is inclined to pray, "From the evil of hypnotism deliver us." Revolting abuses have been perpetrated in this particular. This is not the place to go into details; we refer to the authors above quoted.

The answer to the third question is thus given and supported by facts.

If the doctor had really put the patient in hypnotic state it remains to answer the last question:

4. Was the physician allowed to suggest conversion to the patient?

The physician could not know whether the suggestion of conversion would produce harmful excitement of the nervous system in our patient, and thereby an aggravated condition. He went to work with all necessary caution and gentleness, and he did not worry the sick man by repeating the suggestion. It was permissible to venture something in this case, for the salvation of the patient's soul was of more importance than his somatic condition.

Nor was consideration of the doubt of validity of the Sacraments an obstacle; for the suggestion of conversion did not surely cause invalid reception, it did not even contain an absolute danger to the validity; moreover the Church has not yet prohibited suggestions of this kind. The physician's action can thus be approved of; he was allowed to suggest to the patient in a hypnotic state, Five minutes after awakening from the hypnotic sleep to call for the chaplain and ask him for the last Sacraments.

Israel applied to Titus, the Catholic priest at N., for holy baptism, and began to receive instruction. His motives were not altogether very good, but Titus hoped to improve them and took much pains. Israel had already announced his intention to abandon Judaism, and this was to his credit for the Jewish community at N. publishes the name of every apostate from its ranks in the daily papers.

When the priest applied to the Bishop for leave to baptize Israel, it was noticed from his marriage certificate that his wife had been married before, and there was no indication of her having been a widow. The Bishop asked for particulars, and Israel acknowledged that the woman to whom he was married according to the civil and Mosaic law, had divorced her first husband, who was a Jew. Israel's marriage was therefore invalid in the sight of the Church, propter impedimentum ligaminis, and he has been living in (hitherto material) adultery. Let us call his wife Lydia and her first husband Solomon. The marriage of these two persons was valid. But Israel's baptism would have been possible only if the marriage between Solomon and Lydia had been invalid, or if it had been ratum and not consummatum,—in which case the Pope could separate them,—or if Solomon were dead and Lydia really a widow. One more possibility existed.—Lydia might be baptized and then communicate with Solomon through the Bishop's court. If he answered both the questions asked him in the negative, and said: " I will not be baptized, and I will not live with the Christian Lydia," then Israel could be baptized and married to the already baptized Lydia.

In the case before us Lydia refused at first to be baptized, but afterwards she consented, although she would not announce her abandonment of Judaism publicly. She was afraid that her mother would disinherit her, although she could not have been totally disinherited, but would have received the share of her mother's property to which she was legally entitled. After considering the matter, the Bishop did not allow her to be baptized without making any public announcement; for after her baptism it would have been necessary to communicate with Solomon, who would certainly have revenged himself by informing Lydia's mother that her daughter had become a Christian. Consequently Israel could not be baptized. He and Lydia already had children, and so they could not be advised to separate from bed and board, or to apply to a civil court for a separation. If he and Lydia had been willing to renounce what they hoped to inherit from her mother, his baptism would have been possible, for in that case Lydia would have published her renunciation of Judaism, and have been baptized, and, after Solomon had been communicated with, she might have been properly married to Israel, who would also have been baptized.

If anyone cares more for an inheritance than for God he is unworthy of God's grace. What advantage is it to Israel if he gains the whole world and suffers the loss of his own soul? Christianity requires us to love God more than money and worldly possessions.

It behoves us to be careful about baptizing Jews.—Karl Krasa.

Case.—To the pastor of a city parish there came a young Jewess who asked for Baptism and admission to the Catholic Church. The young woman was known to the pastor as a teacher in a public school, and he was aware that she enjoyed an excellent reputation. The young woman said frankly that the chief reason for her step was the antagonism she met with on account of her being a Jewess, and by becoming a Christian she expected to be advanced more rapidly in position. The pastor was much displeased at learning of her worldly motive for desiring the Sacrament of Baptism. He did not hesitate to express his opinion, adding that he did not consider himself justified to admit her to the Catholic Church unless she came with a purer intention. As a result of the conversation the young woman was not baptized and remained a Jewess.

Question.—It is asked now, was the pastor correct in his action? Interest is added to the case by the fact that other worldly motives, such as marriage, enter sometimes into conversions.

Solution.—Our case is one of Baptism of an adult. Adults can be admitted to Baptism only if they apply properly prepared, induced by proper motives, and of their own free will. Hence the Rituale Romanum prescribes “If an adult is to be baptized, he must first, according to the apostolic rule, be diligently instructed in the Christian faith and holy morals, be exercised for several days in works of piety, and have his will and purpose examined repeatedly; and he is to be baptized only when knowing, willing, and properly instructed.” The most important condition for the validity of Baptism is, therefore, on the part of the adult candidate, the intention to receive the Sacrament. The purity of the intention, however, is not included in the condition, therefore if some one is moved for the reception of Baptism also by secondary, worldly purposes, the Baptism is on that account not invalid. Regarding the licitness, however, it is to be observed that St. Augustine in his book De Fide et Operibus (c. 6) writes: “People are not to be admitted to receive Baptism in such a way that no diligence is exercised there to prevent what is holy from being given to dogs.” Hence Benedict XIV., in his Constitutio Postremo mense (a. 1747. n. 41) cautions: “But great diligence is needed here, experience teaching that Jewish women or girls seek this for the sake of marriage, namely because they are in love with some Christian; while men affect a desire for the Christian faith because they wish to escape the bonds of a marriage already contracted and to leave a Jewish wife.” In such cases, and whenever the reception of Baptism is plainly regarded as a business matter, the application would have to be denied. If, however, a Jew has the honest intention to be baptized, though as a secondary motive he sees in it a worldly advantage, such a one should without any difficulty be admitted to Baptism, because a great spiritual benefit is thus bestowed upon him as also on his posterity. The benefit to himself results from the fact that he receives the one Sacrament without which no man can be saved; he is admitted to the Church out of which there is no salvation; and in his last hours he will receive the Sacraments and thus be saved, whereas in the Jewish religion he would die in his sins, without the Sacraments. The benefit to his posterity is obviously the fact that his children will be raised in the true religion, whereas otherwise they would be raised as Jews. This is exactly the reason why even Pope Gregory the Great did not hesitate to make the Jews more willing for conversion by holding in view worldly benefits, because even if these Jews did not become Catholics with an entirely pure intention, it was to be remembered that their descendants, raised in the Christian faith, might be an honor to the Church: “We gain either them themselves or their children,” the great Pope writes in his letter, ad Cyprianum Diaconum (Gregor. M. epist. v. 8). ‘“It has come to my attention that there are Jews on our estates who are entirely unwilling to be converted to God. But it seems to me that you ought to send letters throughout all the estates on which those Jews are known to be, especially promising them on my behalf that whoever among them is converted to our true Lord and God Jesus Christ will have the burden of his tenancy reduced in some measure. I wish this also to be done in such a way that, if anyone among them is converted, then if he has a rent of one solidus, a tremissis should be remitted to him; if three or four, one solidus should be remitted. If it is more, the remission ought now to be made according to the same proportion, or certainly according to what Your Charity foresees: so that the burden of the one who is converted may be lightened and the Church’s interest may not be oppressed by a grave loss. Nor do we do this without profit if, by lightening the burdens of their rents, we lead them to the grace of Christ; because even if they themselves come with less faithfulness, nevertheless those who are born of them will already be baptized with greater faithfulness. Therefore we gain either them themselves or their children. And so whatever we remit from the rent for Christ is not burdensome...” If it is allowed, therefore, according to Pope Gregory, to induce some one through the prospect of worldly benefits to accept the Christian faith, it is even more permissible to baptize an adult who of her own free will demands Baptism, even though she has the expectation to be advanced in her worldly position. It would be unwise to refuse Baptism to one who comes with an intention not entirely pure, because even if this convert may not become a zealous Catholic, at least all his descendants will be won for the Church. The answer to the question asked follows from these considerations.