Fetuses to Be Baptized

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

² Cf. De praeceptis^12, n. 344.

³ Roman Ritual, tit. 2, c. 1, n. 17.

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

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

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

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

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

¹ Olfers, Pastoralmedicin, p. 30 ff.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

³ On the Sacrament of Baptism, n. 19.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I. A great question is debated among scholars, philosophers, and theologians concerning the moment at which the fetus is animated by a rational soul.¹ Aristotle² and almost all the writers of the Middle Age, with Saint Thomas,³ taught that the animation of a male fetus occurs about⁴ after forty days, of a female after eighty, from the instant of conception. Their reason is that no form is received in matter unless this has been sufficiently prepared and is proximately disposed for receiving the form; but who will say that at the beginning of conception the matter is sufficiently prepared for receiving a rational soul and for constituting a man? Moreover, in the fetus there are observed first the phenomena alone of nutrition and increase, then sensitive life appears, and this finally is so ordered that it can serve rational life; whence first there seems to be present a vegetative soul, then a sensitive, lastly a rational. These arguments are probable.⁵

¹ Capellmann, Eschbach, and Antonelli in the cited works can be consulted; De Smet in Coll. Brug., t. VIII; Revue Eccl. de Liege, 1907-08, t. III, n. 2; Dict. de Theol. cath., article "Animation" (Chollet).

² De Generatione Animalium, l. II, c. 4.

³ In II Sent., d. 18, q. 2, a. 3; Q. D. de Pot., q. 3, a. 9, ad 9; Contra Gentes, l. II, c. 87, 88, and 89; Sum. Th. I, q. 118 and 119.

⁴ Nevertheless there is not one opinion of all in this matter. Hence, Saint Alphonsus says (Th. M., l. 3, n. 394): "Lessius..., from Hippocrates, judges that the male is animated at most on day 30, or 35, or 40, or 45; but the female on day 35, or 40, or 45, or 50. And Lugo and Bonacina and Filiucci feel the same... Nevertheless Busembaum... Elbel... and the Salmanticenses with Saint Thomas, Azor, Sylvius, and the common opinion... say that the male is formed and animated in the space of 40 days, but the female in 80... Indeed Saint Thomas, d. 3, q. 5, a. 2, thus says: The conception of a male is not perfected except up to the 49th day, as the Philosopher says in IX de an.; but that of a female up to the 90th; but in the composition of the male body Augustine seems to add six days..."

⁵ We omit the theological arguments which are brought forward on each side, both because they are not proving, and because they pertain less to a question scientific and philosophical in itself. They are set forth in Dict. de Theol. cath., cited article.

On the contrary, almost all more recent authors⁶ teach that animation occurs in the instant of conception. The reason is that beings are not to be multiplied without necessity; but the rational soul can furnish all things which the vegetative or sensitive soul furnishes; therefore there is no reason for admitting a succession of souls. Moreover experience establishes: a) that the fetus lives from the beginning of conception and therefore is animated; b) that he develops regularly and without interruption, and indeed in such a way that the development naturally is terminated in man: for from the beginning all things are so disposed that they necessarily produce a man; c) that from the beginning the fetus already has all things necessary so that he is a man: for it is established that one and the same being is conceived, develops, and finally is born. There is added that no moment can be assigned at which the soul would be infused.⁷ Whence modern authors hold immediate animation as almost certain.⁸

⁶ Yet not all admit this. For philosophers such as Liberatore, Cornoldi, Sanseverino, and physicians such as Santi and Liverani deny it. To these recently have acceded Em. Card. Mercier (Psychologie, 3e p., ch. II), Dr. J. Lenssen (Quelques considerations sur la nature de la vie et de la mort in the periodical Echo religieux de Belgique, 1902), and P. Vermeersch in his Th. M.

⁷ These arguments are not apodictic. The first does not prove, because if the soul were infused from the instant of conception and constructed its own body for itself, it would be the sole exception to this universal law: no form is infused unless the matter is proximately disposed for receiving it. The other, drawn from experience, proves only that from the beginning there is present in the embryo some principle of life and a sufficient power of producing a man, or at least that the embryo is placed in such circumstances that it necessarily develops into a man; but not that from the beginning it is already a man. But many have receded from the opinion of Aristotle and Saint Thomas, especially from opposition to the Scholastics' system concerning matter and form, because it transcends their understanding, whence they hold the succession of souls in the fetus as something incredible and absurd; likewise from false experiences by which they thought it established that the fetus has all organs essential to man, in small dimensions indeed, already from the beginning. But these things move no one still today.

⁸ Thus Capellmann, Medicina Pastoralis, de abortu; Eschbach, Disp. Phys. theol., disp. 3, cap. 2, prop. 2 and 4; Antonelli, I, n. 255, note; Surbled, La Morale dans ses rapports avec la Medecine, t. II; Gury-Ballerini, Th. M., I, n. 402; Lehmkuhl, Th. M., II, n. 74; Aertnijs, Th. M., I, n. 192; Genicot, Th. M., I, n. 374; Tanquerey, Th. M., suppl. ad Matr., n. 63, and others. Better Noldin, Th. M., II, n. 69: "Almost the common opinion..., but it does not exceed probability." Likewise Salsmans and Prummer.

In these last times the matter has again been made more doubtful. For it is established both that the seed of the man lives in him by its own proper and independent life, and therefore is animated, not indeed by the soul of the man but by its own vital principle,⁹ and similarly that the ovum of the woman lives in her; and the two elements are not always united immediately after copulation. But when they are united, so great and so radical a change does not occur that the composite may then be said already to live by a rational soul: for since before each separated element lived by its own proper vital principle, it seems to be affirmed that now also it lives united by a similar principle. Therefore the rational soul will probably be infused only when the fetus undergoes an altogether radical change and acquires the external species of man; this occurs toward the end of the third month: then, indeed, there is reason why he may be said to be animated by a rational soul.¹⁰ Nevertheless, the difference between males and females which the ancients asserted, relying upon certain false experiments, is most certainly to be rejected: for at this time the very difference of sex cannot yet be discerned. "For the organs of generation," Eschbach testifies (o. c., 3, c. 2, prop. 4), "in the fetus, not until after the third or fourth month from conception, appear sufficiently distinct that it may be determined whether it is male or female, since before this no one can say of what sex the embryo is."

⁹ "The spermatozoid, the male element, has a life proper to itself distinct from that of neighboring spermatozoids and from that of the generator, since it can continue to move separately from the other spermatozoids and outside the generator... The mature ovule, the female element, has a life apart like the spermatozoid... From before fecundation, there is in each generative element an individual life, therefore a principle of life, a soul..." Thus Chollet, professor of Lille, in Dict. de Theol. cath., art. "Animation." Saint Thomas already acknowledges this (I, q. 119, a. 2), that the seed is not animated by the soul of the man, "because... if it were animated, while it is resolved and separated from the living thing, it would lose the form of the whole, and together with it life; and thus it would be on the way to corruption, and therefore could not be a principle of life in a generated living thing." Goudin, Philosophia, tom. III, de Anima, a. 4.

¹⁰ Nor afterward can any other moment be assigned at which the soul would likely arrive. Hence prop. 25 was condemned by Innocent XI: "It seems probable that the fetus, as long as it is in the uterus, lacks a rational soul, and then first begins to have the same when it is brought forth, and consequently homicide is committed in no abortion." Nor is it an obstacle that, when the third month has been completed, intellectual life cannot be exercised; for no one will prove this, and besides, this being granted, nevertheless there is sensitive life not in just any way, but insofar as it is ordered to rational life, so that in its dispositions it differs essentially from the life of a simple animal.

II. Since each opinion concerning the moment at which the fetus is animated is probable,¹¹ it follows that all living fetuses are to be baptized, absolutely after the third month, before this time under condition: si es homo, or: si es capax. For charity, even with great temporal inconveniences, strictly obliges all to procure the salvation of another; and therefore it commands that from our action or omission there not follow even a probable danger to another's salvation. For just as it is illicit to kill a fetus probably animated, so it is illicit to cast him away without Baptism; but before all things the soul must certainly be saved.

¹¹ "In the present state of the question, it seems that there is, neither in Sacred Scripture, nor in tradition, nor in pontifical documents, nor in theology, nor in philosophy, nor in biology, any decisive argument in favor of one of the two animations." Thus Chollet, in Dict. de Theol. cath., cited article.

Therefore abortive fetuses certainly live, or only probably live, or certainly are dead. If they certainly live, they must be baptized, absolutely if they bear the form of man, i.e., after the third month; before this time, under condition: si es homo. If they probably or doubtfully live, let them be baptized under condition: si es homo. If they are certainly dead, they are not to be baptized.

III. Certain signs of death are:¹²

¹² They are indicated in Capellmann, o. c., de Baptismo, and in De Smet. There are also other signs for physicians.

1. If the ovum is born torn in the first months, which not rarely happens: for then the fetus is lost or absorbed, and certainly dead;

2. if before it is expelled, it has remained for a long time in the uterus apart from the placenta, or with the placenta separated from the mother herself, it comes forth certainly dead and corrupted;

3. if abortive ova form a mass which they call a mole;¹³ concerning this case Jerome Florentinius already writes:¹⁴ "If that poured-out covering appears surrounded by a membrane which is of whitish color, like intestines, of oval figure, and which, touched by the finger, softens and yields, it is a sign that it is a fetus, not a mole; but if... it is formless flesh, interwoven with black and bloody veins, rough, hard, or stained with various color, then it will be judged a mole, not a fetus";¹⁵

¹³ A mole is a vitiated fruit of conception, and indeed in such a way that for the most part not even a trace of a fetus is found; this inert fruit certainly neither ought nor can be baptized.

¹⁴ In the dissertation de Hominibus dubie baptizandis.

¹⁵ For understanding the foregoing, let it be noted with Antonelli, t. II, n. 22-23: "In the first four months abortion does not always follow the cause which produces it, and in the coverings of the fetus certain processes accede which slowly dispose toward abortion, by which it happens that the ovule is diminished and the fetus perishes; often in the membranes, and especially in the decidua serotina, blood vessels are torn, which greatly increase the size of the ovum, which then makes a bloody mole, or changes it more or less profoundly; but when these hemorrhages of the membranes have already happened for a long time and the membranes appear discolored, then fleshy moles are had; sometimes in the amniotic membrane the embryo is lacking, which after death has suffered maceration; sometimes only small traces of it are found; sometimes finally the embryo remains perfectly preserved. Namely, when abortion follows the cause of the abortion itself, the ovule is perfectly preserved."

4. if there is putrefaction of the ovum or fetus, not merely beginning, but well apparent, the signs of which are spots and odor;

5. if there is a corrupt and putrid flow, corruption of the fluids of the amnion, blood, etc., which, with abortion almost imminent, flow from the uterus;

6. generally for fetuses of the seventh and eighth month: if there is effusion of the amniotic fluid several days before delivery, or the greatest flow of blood many hours before delivery, as in placenta previa.¹⁶

¹⁶ What placenta previa is, see above, p. 22, note 1.

When those signs are lacking, the ovum is always to be baptized if it is fresh, not discolored or putrid; and the fetus, if he is white, and not yellowish or somewhat dark.

IV. Certain signs of life are:

1. pulsation of the heart, which at the beginning is placed near the head, and can already ordinarily be observed after five or six weeks;¹⁷

¹⁷ Indeed Antonelli (II, 28): "More probably in the fetus the heart begins to beat before the third week of pregnancy; if it is not easy to notice these pulsations, it suffices to note whether pulsations are in the umbilical cord."

2. movements which can be observed in the muscles, sometimes already from the third month, but ordinarily not before the fifth month completed, at which time the muscles are already perfectly developed;

3. pulsation of the umbilical cord, which is perceived by touch.

V. It has seemed to certain persons very difficult to confer Baptism upon an embryo, both because of its small dimensions, and because of the danger of death which, the membranes by which it is enveloped having been ruptured, would threaten the embryo from cold water or from contact with air.¹⁸ Now, although at the beginning it is very small, nevertheless it can easily be recognized: after a month, and sometimes after three weeks, it has the length of one centimeter, if it is extended; after six weeks, up to seventeen to twenty-five millimeters of length; at the end of the third month, seven to nine centimeters. But such fruits it is advisable to baptize by immersion, both because they are very small and because they so easily float in the amniotic fluid that it is uncertain whether they are reached by baptismal water; there is added that according to some they could be killed by contact with air.

¹⁸ Nevertheless Capellmann denies the danger, l. c.

Baptism is done in the following manner: under lukewarm water let the veils be ruptured; these having been ruptured, let the form of Baptism immediately be pronounced: si es homo, ego..., while the matter of the ovum flows out; and so that the sacrament may be altogether certainly valid, let the fetus also be extracted at once.

Nor can the mode which many authors have taught¹⁹ be approved, namely that the fetus first is to be baptized in the membranes under condition: si possum or si es capax; and again, the veils having been ruptured, under condition: si non es baptizatus. For neither Baptism is certain: not the first, because it is not done upon the fetus; nor the second, because, as they say, perhaps the fetus is killed by the air.

¹⁹ Still today the following say this: Theol. Mechl.; Eschbach; Mourreau and Lavaud (Le medecin chretien); formerly Cangiamila and De Breyne taught it.

VI. Concerning the causes and signs of casual abortion let it be noted:

A. Abortion has place:²⁰

²⁰ Antonelli I, n. 419, and II, n. 20.

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

¹⁷¹ Pastoralmedizin¹⁰, 259.

157. State of the question. - Immature or abortive fetuses are those which are cast forth from the womb of the mother non-viable, i.e. before the time at which, outside the womb of the mother, they can live in the circumstances determined here and now. These, if they live with a rational soul, are men and consequently certainly to be baptized; but there is doubt at what moment the fetus is animated by a human soul: whether only after some time, when the human figure already sufficiently appears (which we now know happens after about three months), as Aristotle, St. Thomas, and almost all the older writers taught, and as again is pleasing to several more recent writers; - or on the contrary from the very beginning of conception, as the moderns rather generally affirm too confidently or even without any hesitation.¹ Yet since in things necessary by necessity of means for salvation it is illicit in practice to adhere to probable or doubtful opinions, but the safer course is to be taken, hence in practice all living or doubtfully living fetuses are to be baptized; from which the following rules are easily understood.

¹ Concerning this question, as concerning the whole matter of this and of the preceding and following article, cf. our Questions on Embryology and on the Ministration of Baptism, II, q. 3, 4 and 5, which explain the matter more broadly.

158. Principles. - I. Living fetuses, after about three months from conception, or presenting a sufficiently human figure, are to be baptized absolutely.

II. Living fetuses, before three months from conception, or not presenting a human figure, are at least to be baptized under condition: if you are a man, or if you are capable.

III. Doubtfully living fetuses are to be baptized under the same condition.

159. Practical corollaries. - 1. Those things which a pregnant woman has poured forth in an abortion or flow of blood are to be examined, even in the first months, so that if a fetus is detected it may be baptized. Nor should it be thought that an ejected fetus is quickly dead: it is useful to note that very small fetuses have sometimes been found living a few days after ejection.

2. Yet since, before six months, they are not accustomed to live for long, they are to be baptized quickly. For time is not to be wasted in searching for signs of life, but if the ovum appears recent and the fetus white, not yellowish nor suffused, it is to be baptized immediately. Yet a certain sign of death is putrefaction of the ovum or fetus, not beginning but well apparent, whose signs are spots and stench.²

² Concerning other signs of life or death, it is spoken of in our said little work, q. 4, III and IV.

3. Before the end of the third month, signs of life are accustomed to be uncertain and are observed with difficulty because of the smallness of the embryo;³ whence in fact, in practice, the time at which the fetus is certainly a man and the time at which life can be observed with certitude coincide. And therefore the Code of Canon Law, as a general practical norm, which holds ordinarily and in most cases, could establish, can. 747: "Care is to be taken that all abortive fetuses, brought forth at whatever time, if they certainly live, be baptized absolutely; if doubtfully, under condition." Namely regularly, unless something certainly stands in the way, it is to be done thus. The Code speaks according to ordinary contingencies and can disregard very rare exceptions.⁴ Moreover the canon can perhaps be understood concerning human life, as Vermeersch thinks.

³ "It more rarely happens that life is observed in an embryo before the third month has been completed, at least when it has been ejected from the maternal womb without its coverings; but it is accustomed to be ejected thus from the beginning of the third month." De Smet, op. cit., n. 319.

⁴ This holds even if the redactors of the Code followed the opinion of the moderns concerning animation from the first instant of conception. For, as Vermeersch notes, Th. M., III, n. 219, the Code "does not propose the opinion doctrinally in the least, but merely hands down a practical norm." Moreover the authority of the Code in this matter is not irrefragable, just as neither is that of the Roman Ritual. Whence just as the Ritual, in practice concerning Baptism in the womb of the mother or concerning monsters to be baptized, could err for several centuries, so also the Code could err in a practical question; if this were established concerning it, it would have to be abandoned.

4. A fetus which is brought forth enveloped in the ovum or covering is more advisably baptized by immersion, both because it is very small, and because it so easily floats in the amniotic fluid that it is uncertain whether it is touched by the baptismal water; there is added the fact that according to some it could be killed by contact with air.⁵

⁵ Capellmann, however, denies the danger, Medicina pastoralis, on Baptism.

Baptism is done in the following manner: under tepid water the membranes are broken, so that the amniotic fluid may flow out; once this is done, immediately the form of Baptism is pronounced: if you are a man, I..., while the whole matter of the ovum is immersed; and so that the sacrament may be entirely certainly valid, the fetus is also immediately extracted.

Nor can the mode which many authors have taught be approved,⁶ namely that the fetus first be baptized in the membranes under condition: if I can or if you are capable; and again, when the membranes have been broken, under condition: if you are not baptized. For neither Baptism is certain: not the first, because it is not done upon the fetus; nor the second, because, as they say, perhaps the fetus is killed by air.

⁶ Still today the Theol. Mechl.; Eschbach; Mourreau and Lavrand (Le médecin chrétien) say this; formerly Cangiamila and De Breyne taught it.

5. Baptism is not to be conferred if the fetus is certainly dead, or if the abortive ovum produces a fleshy mass which they call a mole. A mole is a vitiated fruit of conception in such a way that the fetus is totally reabsorbed or only a trace of it is found. Concerning this Jerome Florentinius already writes:⁷ "If that covering poured forth appears surrounded by a membrane which is of whitish color, like intestines, of oval shape, and which at the touch of the finger becomes soft and yields, it is a sign that it is a fetus, not a mole: but if... it is shapeless flesh, interwoven with black and blood-colored veins, rough, hard, or stained with various color, then it will be judged a mole, not a fetus."

⁷ Dissertation on Men to Be Baptized Doubtfully, Lyons, 1658.

160. Admonition. - By the pastor, according to can. 743, and by the confessor when occasion is given, physicians, midwives, and mothers are to be admonished cautiously and prudently concerning the obligation of baptizing even the smallest abortive fetuses, lest they be thrown away unbaptized. It is best if a Catholic physician, or, if he is lacking, the pastor, teaches midwives, and these, or parents, teach younger mothers or wives.