The matter of Baptism

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

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

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

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

¹ John 3, 5. Cf. Acts 8, 36.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

¹ Holy Office, 21 Aug. 1901.

² Holy Office, 22 June 1883.

³ Holy Office, 17 Apr. 1839.

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

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

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

¹ Roman Ritual, tit. 2, c. 1, n. 4.

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

³ S. C. de Prop. Fid., 8 Sept. 1869.

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

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

⁶ S. C. R., 31 Jan. 1896, n. 3879.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

¹ Roman Ritual, tit. 2, c. 1, n. 4.

² Holy Office, 14 Dec. 1898.

³ Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 107.

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

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

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

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

⁸ Roman Ritual, tit. 2, c. 1, n. 16.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

¹ Session 7, On Baptism, canon 2.

² In French: chloride de mercure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

¹ John 3:5.

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

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

⁴ Nederlandsche Katholieke Stemmen, 1927, p. 146.

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

⁶ Rom. 6:3-5.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

236. Principles. - I. The valid matter of Baptism is natural water alone, or elemental water, suitable for washing. It is of Faith. This is clear: 1. from the words of Christ, John 3.5: Unless a man be born again of water, etc. - It is clear: 2. from the Councils, especially from the Council of Florence in the Decree for the Armenians, and from Trent, sess. 7, can. 2, on Baptism: If anyone shall say that true and natural water is not of the necessity of Baptism, and therefore shall twist to some metaphor those words of our Lord Jesus Christ: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, let him be anathema.

II. The licit matter of Baptism, outside a case of necessity, is only blessed or consecrated water, and mixed with chrism according to the rite of the Church, at least for solemn Baptism. This is clear from Canon Law. See below, on the ceremonies of Baptism. But he certainly sins gravely by a sin of sacrilege who, without grave necessity, uses impure, turbid, or feculent water, although this matter is valid. - St. Ligorius, n. 102, etc.

III. In danger of death, if matter certainly valid cannot be had, doubtful matter must be used under this condition: If this matter is sufficient... Then even a slight probability concerning the value of the matter suffices, because in necessity one must come to the aid of the neighbor in the best way in which it can be done. But if one so baptized survives, when there is an abundance of matter certainly valid, he must again be baptized under this condition: If thou art not baptized, I baptize thee, etc. - Common.

237. Resolves. - 1. Valid matter is: 1. water of springs, wells, rivers, the sea, ponds, marshes, lakes, cisterns; 2. water resolved from ice, snow, or hail, because it preserves the same substance, although accidentally it has been changed as to color, taste, or smell; 3. sulphurous or mineral water, water collected from vapor, dew, or flowing in stormy weather from a wall, leaves, etc.; 4. turbid water, mixed with another substance, provided that water is the matter truly and certainly predominating, so that according to the use or estimation of men it can still be called water. - St. Ligorius, n. 103. - Elbel, n. 8, and others commonly.

2. Invalid matter is: 1. milk, blood, tears, sweat, saliva, spittle, urine; 2. wine, oil, beer, thick broth from fat, etc.; 3. mud, ink; 4. snow, ice, hoarfrost, and other similar things not yet resolved, because in this state they are not natural water ¹.

¹ ** Better, as the VV. observe (p. 929, n. 87), St. Alphonsus (lib. 6, n. 104): It is doubted, 4. whether ice or snow not melted is suitable matter. Concina and Croix likewise deny it (lib. 6, p. 1, n. 262) with Tanner; but Aversa, cited by Croix, and Hurtado, Praepositus, and Puteanus, cited by Renzi, doubt; therefore they say that in necessity it can be used under condition.

3. Doubtful matter is: 1. very thin broth, lye, weak beer, water from dissolved salt; thus commonly with St. Ligorius, n. 103; 2. humor flowing from a vine and from other plants. - St. Ligorius, n. 104.

238. • The proximate matter of Baptism is washing, which can be done in three ways, namely by immersion, sprinkling, and pouring, according to the practice of the different Churches, so that by the moral judgment of men the baptized person is judged to have been washed. This is clear from the words of the form, and from the perpetual practice of the Church, as well as from Paul, Eph. 5.26: Cleansing by the laver of water in the word of life.

239. Questions. - QUESTION 1. Whether a child can be validly baptized in the mother's womb?

Resp. The answer is affirmative, more probably, if the child in the womb is reached by water through some intervening instrument; because, since the infant already exists as a wayfarer man, he can be validly baptized. Nor is it an obstacle that the child is still wrapped in the secundina, because this is considered as a kind of part of the infant. Nevertheless, he must be baptized under condition, because it is not certainly established whether Baptism conferred in this way is valid. Therefore, if the child is born, he must again be baptized under condition. - St. Ligorius, n. 107. More recently, however, the skill of physicians has introduced another method by which a child not yet brought forth into the light can be baptized more certainly. Namely, an instrument has been invented by which the secundina is cut; and thus water, by another instrument being applied, can arrive so as immediately to touch the very body of the fetus ¹.

¹ Compare the things said in Vol. I, in the note to n. 401, where abortion is treated.

** Yet here the doubt must be satisfied which the VV. raise at this place (p. 929, in note): Since St. Alphonsus, they say, calls the validity of Baptism conferred on a child existing in the mother's womb only sufficiently probable, Father Ballerini certainly errs in the note to n. 401, tom. 1, when he says: According to those things which St. Alphonsus discusses in lib. 6, n. 107, after Benedict XIV, we can be altogether certain concerning the validity of Baptism thus conferred on infants enclosed in the womb.

Resp. This remained: that the VV. should give the reason for that word, ERRS. Indeed they would rightly have written so if in Father B.'s note it were said that the validity of Baptism thus conferred is handed down as certain both by St. Alphonsus and by Benedict XIV. But no such assertion is seen there; rather it is merely said that we can be certain according to those things which St. Alphonsus discusses after Benedict XIV. Now behold the easy and obvious reason for this affirmation. For, to prevent us from being able to be certain concerning the validity of this Baptism, two things especially stood in the way: one, that he who has not yet been born cannot be reborn; the other, that an infant in the womb cannot be washed, as St. Thomas objected. But the first difficulty St. Doctor Alphonsus has now solved so lucidly that he has utterly destroyed it. To this response it will be useful to have added this other reason (in Comitolius, lib. 1, q. 3, n. 1): If it is not a Sacrament, it is not one because birth from the womb is necessary; but that this is not necessary by essential necessity is clear from this: because a child enclosed in the womb of a dead mother is baptized after the mother has been cut open; which child cannot properly be called born. And an illustrious example stands forth in St. Raymond, to whom for this reason the surname NON-BORN was given. But as to the other difficulty, even if the matter could have seemed less certain to the St. Doctor, who merely intimates that the child can duly be washed in the womb, citing only the testimony of Benedict XIV after Comitolius, yet concerning that matter there can now be no further doubt. Hence, indeed, the argument which Comitolius (l.c.) also reports thus: Where nothing essential is lacking to Baptism, there it is necessary that there be true Baptism, since four essentials are considered in Baptism: matter, form, the minister with the intention of the Church, and the human supposit receiving the Sacrament. Here those four are found; therefore there can be no doubt concerning Baptism.

But, you will say, why did St. Alphonsus call this opinion merely sufficiently probable? Resp. Let it be permitted to conjecture that the St. Doctor thus moderated his judgment because what was being maintained concerning the necessary washing did not seem sufficiently certain to him. Hence (l.c.) he also has recourse to the doctrine of Sylvester and Vasquez, who say that an infant wrapped in the secundina is validly baptized; and he adds that this is judged probable by Laymann. And from these things it is clear how the state of the controversy, treated so clearly by St. Alphonsus, paved the way for us, so that what could seem to him only probable can now already be certainly established.

And from these things it is concluded that certainly in the state of the controversy as St. Alphonsus handles it, room is left for other questions concerning the dangers which would seem to have to be undergone by the mother, in order that the eternal salvation of the offspring may be provided for. But from this it cannot likewise be inferred that the same thing has place when the condition of the controversy has become different.

QUESTION 2. Whether Baptism is valid if the water touches only the clothes or the hair of the person to be baptized?

Resp. 1. If the water touches only the clothes, Baptism is certainly invalid, because thus no one would say that the man is washed; 2. however, it is more probably valid if the water touches the hair. But in practice the safer part must be followed. - St. Ligorius, n. 107, q. 3. - Hence, if the person to be baptized has hair, the Priest should either part his hair with the fingers of the left hand while he pours the water with the right, or baptize him on the forehead. - Scov.

QUESTION 3. Whether Baptism conferred on another part than on the head is valid?

Resp. The answer is affirmative, more probably, especially if Baptism is conferred on some more principal part, for example on the breast, shoulders, etc. Nevertheless, if necessity compelled this, afterwards, if it can be done, Baptism should be repeated under condition. - St. Ligorius, ibid., q. 4.

240. • QUESTION 4. Whether one or another drop of water suffices for baptizing?

Resp. The answer is negative, more probably, especially if the water does not flow, because that cannot be called washing, which is altogether required for Baptism. - Thus commonly. Nevertheless it seems to be doubtful matter, which in a case of necessity should be used. - St. Ligorius, n. 107, q. 6. - Elbel, n. 16. But they commonly say that the matter is then certain if the one baptizing, by movement of a moistened finger, washed a part of the body. - St. Ligorius, ibid.

QUESTION 5. Whether triple washing is required for Baptism?

Resp. 1. It is certainly not required for validity; for one washing suffices, so that someone is judged truly washed. - Thus all with St. Thomas, part 3, q. 66, art. 8.

Resp. 2. But it is required for liceity, and indeed under grave obligation, where this triple pouring of water is prescribed, as in the Roman Ritual. Yet these things seem to be understood of solemn Baptism.

I. Three things are required for the validity of Baptism: 1) the intention of the minister, at least virtual, of doing what the Church does; 2) valid matter and form posited together; 3) a capable subject, for which in an adult there is required the intention, at least habitual, of receiving the sacrament. But if one of these is doubtfully present or has been present, Baptism, just as in a case of necessity it is to be conferred, so also is to be renewed: conditionally.

Concerning these, no special difficulty occurs, in relation to the present questions about embryology, except nevertheless for the matter of the sacrament, about which, therefore, we shall speak especially. But so that the exposition may be more complete and more perfect from every part, and the whole synthesis of theological doctrine may be seen, and at the same time the solution of cases may be manifest in all things, we also add the principles to be held concerning the form of the sacrament.

II. The remote matter required for validity is natural or elementary water in a liquid state, as is established from Jn. III, 5, and Acts of the Apostles VIII, 36; from the rituals; from the Fourth Lateran, Florence, and Trent defining it, sess. 7, can. 2; i.e., everything which comes under the use and name of water among men. Such is water of rivers, rain, a well, a spring, ponds, cisterns, a bath, marshes, lakes, the sea, whether bitter or poisoned or sweet, whether warm and boiling or cold and icy, whether blessed or not. Likewise water dissolved from snow, ice, hail, dew, mists, condensed vapors, or flowing from stones (sweat of pavement), leaves, or walls in rainy or winter time; likewise water obtained by chemical art or by distillation of another element, if it is pure from foreign elements; likewise water mixed with foreign matter in a small quantity, provided that not only chemically but also according to common estimation water is certainly predominant and it is still called water, e.g., turbid or somewhat muddy water, mineral, sulphurous, ferruginous water, etc.

Hence:

1. invalid matter is: wine, oil, broth of flesh or fat, fluids of an animal or human body: milk, blood, urine, saliva, tears, sweat, mucus, amniotic fluid, spittle, phlegms, etc.; sap pressed from trees, fruits (apples, pears, cherries), flowers, herbs, roots, grains; snow, ice, hail, hoarfrost, vapor, and other things not dissolved because they are not suitable for ablution; water very much mixed, so that it has more of a foreign substance than of water, or is no longer suitable for ablution, e.g., mud, ink, very good beer, good coffee, good tea, good broth, lye. For all these things are not water; or if they are, according to common estimation they do not have the use or name of water.

2. doubtful matter is thin broth, lye not too thick, small beer, ordinary tea-water or coffee-water, slight ink, water dissolved from salt, artificial water extracted by distillation from flowers or herbs, e.g., rose-water, violet-water, etc., or flowing from a vine or trees.

III. The proximate valid matter is the ablution of the one to be baptized by the one baptizing; otherwise the sense of the form would not be verified, and besides this is held by universal tradition. It is said:

1. Ablution, for which it is required that water immediately and physically touch the body and successively flow and run over some part of it, so that it is judged washed or cleansed. For this, however, a small quantity suffices; nor is it necessary that bodily filth be wiped away: for the ablution of Baptism is ordered to spiritual cleansing alone. It can be done either a) by movement of the one to be baptized in the water, or b) by movement of the water upon the one to be baptized; namely:

a) by immersion, for which it is required that someone be moved in or under the water; whence Baptism would be invalid if someone were held unmoved in unmoved water; and probably, according to certain authors, also that he be drawn out from the water. Hence an ablution which kills, by which someone would throw an infant into a river, is doubtfully valid; besides, it is gravely illicit because evils are not to be done that goods may come about. But the very throwing is already evil of itself, as tending directly only to killing, nor does it immediately have a good effect, as ablution, but only mediately and by accident, because in fact it is terminated rather to water and ablution than to something else. Namely, the ablution in the case is an effect of the throwing, which, even if it were not done into water, would nevertheless cause death.¹ Nevertheless, it is licit to wash with icy water, if no other is available, even if death were feared as about to be hastened somewhat, because this action of itself and immediately tends to ablution and sanctification, not to killing; whence death would happen by accident and would be compensated by the more excellent good of eternal life;

¹ Cf. Billuart, de Bapt., art. 3, § III.

b) also by infusion and by sprinkling, although this last mode is dangerous in practice; for these some movement of water is required. Whence invalid matter is the mere touch of water without flow, a drop or wet cloth remaining on the forehead; ablution performed by one or another drop, or in the manner of an anointing, is easily doubtful (S. Off., 14 Dec. 1898); it is valid if someone by movement of a finger or moistened cloth would wash a part of the body.

2. Ablution of the one to be baptized, i.e., a) of the whole body or of a principal part, namely the head, "in which all the interior and exterior senses flourish" (S. Th., III, q. 66, a. 7, ad 3). Baptism is valid if it is done upon the head covered with an ulcerous crust, because the crust is nothing but the skin of the infant foully disfigured by disease, and otherwise a man whose whole head were covered with smallpox could neither be washed nor baptized. Baptism is doubtful if the ablution is done on other members than the head, because in none is the integrity of life as in the head; and it is the more doubtful the more it is done on a member less notable and more remote from the head; whence it is more probably valid if it is done on the heart, breast, neck, shoulder-blades, shoulders; more doubtful on the arms or legs; very doubtful on the foot, hand, finger;

b) of the body itself, which must be physically and immediately touched. Hence there is doubt concerning the value of Baptism conferred on hairs, even of the head, because they are not certainly parts of the body;² it is more doubtful if on beard or nails; very doubtful if on the umbilical cord or on one of the two membranes which immediately envelop the infant in the mother's uterus and which are born from the ovum, for although they are of fetal origin, nevertheless they are not a permanent part of the infant but rather a covering or transitory instrument; almost certainly invalid if on the third, exterior membrane enveloping the fetus, because this arises from the substance of the mother; invalid if it is done on the clothing or body of the mother (S. Off., 21 May 1671).

² But if the head is covered with hair, the priest must, while with the right hand he pours water upon the crown of the head, with the left separate the hairs, or take care that the water run over the temples of the head, or, what is easier in practice, confer Baptism on the forehead, because that it must be washed on the crown is nowhere prescribed. Cf. Noldin, Th. M., III, n. 60. Certain authors, such as Lugo and Genicot, judge Baptism conferred on the hairs to be as certain as on the skin, for if the hairs of an animal are washed, the animal is said to be washed. Nevertheless it can be answered that this is true of an animal which cannot be washed otherwise, not of a man who by his nature does not have hairs everywhere, and therefore can be washed immediately.

3. Ablution by the one baptizing: for if it were done by the baptized person, or by a third person, or by a natural cause alone, e.g., while a child falls into water, the words would be false: I baptize thee. Baptism is valid if someone holds an infant under falling water without the help of another, or under water already poured out by another, because the one holding is the sole cause of the ablution; but if another intends or knows that he is pouring water upon the infant, Baptism is doubtful because it is doubted whether the one who holds or the one by whose help the water descends is the cause of the ablution.

IV. For liceity there is required pure and specially consecrated water; and in the Latin Church the ablution is to be done by triple infusion, in the manner of a cross. He sins mortally against reverence toward the sacrament who without necessity employs impure, dirty, turbid water, or who in solemn Baptism does not use consecrated water, or changes the usual manner of ablution, or does not make the triple infusion. But if in a case of necessity consecrated water is lacking, blessed water is to be employed; otherwise natural water (S. Off., 22 Jun. 1883). Outside a case of necessity new water is to be blessed (17 Apr. 1839).

In merely private Baptism, even by a deacon not commissioned, it is better to use blessed water, or, if the one baptizing is a priest, even consecrated water.

101. 3. The proximate matter of baptism is the application of water performed by the minister in such a way that, according to common judgment, a true washing is present. This washing can be performed in three ways: by immersion, sprinkling, and pouring. According to the discipline now in force in the Roman Church, solemn baptism must be administered not by one but by a threefold pouring or immersion.

During the first twelve centuries baptism was more commonly administered by immersion, both in the Latin Church and in the Greek Church. Even St. Thomas⁴⁵ calls immersion the more common and more praiseworthy usage. Nevertheless, baptism by pouring or sprinkling was always in force also. For it is not likely that the Apostles, who baptized 3,000 men on one day of Pentecost, employed immersion. Likewise, the so-called clinics, or the sick lying in bed, were often baptized in bed; for them baptism by immersion was scarcely possible. Moreover, St. Paul is narrated to have baptized the jailer with his household in prison,⁴⁶ which does not seem to have been performed by immersion. Furthermore, the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, c. 7, St. Cyprian,⁴⁷ Eusebius,⁴⁸ and others testify that baptism by pouring was employed from the most ancient times.

Therefore the Greeks and others err who teach that baptism by immersion alone is valid. The reason is that the essence of baptism consists in washing. Now, a true washing can also be had through pouring. From the thirteenth century onward baptism by pouring became more common in the Latin Church because baptism by immersion is accustomed to introduce grave inconveniences.

Nevertheless, even in present times baptism could be performed by immersion; for the Roman Ritual⁴⁹ says: "Although baptism can be validly conferred either by the pouring of water, by immersion, or by sprinkling, nevertheless the first or second mode, or a mode mixed from both, which is more in use, is to be retained according to the custom of the Churches, so that by a threefold washing the head of the one to be baptized is poured over or immersed"; and the same Ritual describes how immersion is to be performed in the baptism of adults. In practice, it is not lawful to depart from the custom in force in each Church.

⁴⁵ S. theol. 3, q. 66, a. 7.

⁴⁶ Acts 16:33.

⁴⁷ Ep. 69, n. 12.

⁴⁸ Hist. eccl. 6, 43 (Migne, Patr. lat. 20, 623).

⁴⁹ Tit. 2, c. 1, de form. bapt., n. 10; the Code of Canon Law, c. 758, says nearly the same.

The remote matter of Baptism is water; but the proximate matter is the washing itself.

1453. Principles. I. The VALID matter of Baptism is natural or elemental water. It is of faith, as is established from the Councils, especially from Trent, sess. 7, can. 2, on Baptism: "If anyone shall say that true and natural water is not of the necessity of Baptism, and therefore shall twist to some metaphor the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Unless anyone shall have been born again of water and the Holy Spirit: let him be anathema."

Hence: 1. Matter certainly valid is: 1. water of springs, wells, the sea, rivers, lakes, ponds, cisterns, and rainwater; and thus any simple and pure water which retains the proper species of water; nor does it matter whether it is cold or warm, from the Roman Ritual; 2. water resolved from snow, ice, and hail; 3. sulphurous or mineral water; 4. water flowing in stormy weather from a wall, leaves, etc.; 5. turbid water mixed with another thing, provided water is the predominant matter; 6. dew, and water collected from condensed vapors, for example on the lid of a pot; 7. water simply distilled, roses or other leaves having been infused in the water.²⁶

2. Matter certainly invalid is: 1. blood, milk, wine, urine, phlegm, saliva, sweat, tears; 2. juice expressed from flowers, herbs, and roots.¹

3. Doubtful matter is: 1. broth and lye; 2. water from dissolved salt; 3. thin beer, thin ink, water flowing from a vine or other trees, and ice or snow not melted; 4. water drawn out by chemical art from flowers, plants, roots, wine, or oil; 5. one or another drop of water.²

1454. II. The LICIT matter of Baptism is clean water alone, and in solemn Baptism it must moreover be consecrated. The reason is that this is required both from the prescription of the Church and on account of reverence for the Sacrament.³

Hence: 1. He commits sacrilege who without necessity uses impure, turbid, or muddy water, although natural. 2. He sins gravely against the precept of the Church who does not use consecrated water in solemn Baptism. 3. If the consecrated water has been corrupted, natural water is to be preferred; but if time is sufficient, new water should be consecrated by the brief formula, as is contained in the Ritual. Thus from the Response of the Holy Office, April 17, 1839.⁴ 4. In private Baptism, unconsecrated water is probably licit; nevertheless care must be taken that at least blessed or lustral water be employed, for greater decency.⁵

1455. III. In cases OF NECESSITY, when certainly valid matter is lacking, doubtful matter is to be employed, but with this CONDITION added: "If this matter is sufficient"; for then even a slight probability concerning the value of the matter suffices (see nn. 82 and 1407). But if one so baptized survives, once a supply of matter certainly valid has been had, he must again be baptized under this condition: "If thou art not baptized, I baptize thee, etc."⁶

1456. Principles. I. For the validity of Baptism there is required a true WASHING of the body through water: that is, such an application of water as, in moral estimation, is necessary that a man be said truly washed or bathed.⁷

Whence there is required: 1. That water immediately touch the body of the one to be baptized. Therefore Baptism is invalid if, the child not yet having been born, the body of the mother is washed; likewise, if the water touches only the garments of the one to be baptized; but doubtful, if only his hair, or the afterbirth. 2. That it be done on the head, as is becoming, because in it all the senses flourish, or at least, as is very commonly taught, on another notable part of the body, for example on the shoulders or on the breast. Whence, if from necessity Baptism has been conferred on a less notable part, for example on the hand, fingers, or foot, it must altogether be repeated under condition; nay more, the same seems to be done for caution, even if Baptism has been conferred on a notable part; "because, from St. Thomas,⁸ in none of the exterior parts does the integrity of life consist as in the head." 3. That the contact of water be successive, namely in such a way that either water is applied successively to the body, or the body to water. Hence Baptism would be doubtful if the one to be baptized were thrown into water from which he did not emerge. 4. That there be a quantity of water truly sufficient for washing: therefore he would validly baptize who would put the one to be baptized under water flowing from a roof and would pronounce the form; but, according to the common opinion, he would not validly baptize if he touched the body of the one to be baptized with only one or another drop. Baptism conferred thus, especially if the drop has not flowed, would be altogether doubtful. Yet if the one baptizing, by motion of a moistened finger, were to wash a part of the body of the one to be baptized, authors commonly hold such Baptism as certain, although not a few still doubt concerning its validity.⁹

For validity it makes no difference whether the washing is done by immersion, or by sprinkling, provided water flows; whether by threefold or single infusion.¹⁰

1457. II. With respect to LICEITY, the manner of washing which is used in individual Churches must be observed, and indeed generally under grave obligation. The Greeks indeed retain threefold immersion, which they can also employ while they stay among Latins, as is established from Benedict XIV's Constitution Etsi pastoralis. But the ROMAN RITUAL has these things: "The priest takes baptismal water with a small vessel or pitcher, and from it pours three times over the head of the infant in the manner of a cross, and at the same time pronouncing the words, says distinctly and attentively only once: N... I baptize thee in the name of the Father, he pours the first time; and of the Son, he pours the second time; and of the Holy Spirit, he pours the third time." But where there is the custom of baptizing by IMMERSION, for example in the Milanese Church, the priest receives the infant, and taking care lest he be injured, cautiously immerses his head, and baptizes by threefold immersion, saying only once: N... I baptize thee, etc.¹¹

The threefold washing, outside the case of necessity, from the truer opinion, is prescribed under grave obligation; because a rite of this kind is sufficiently grave matter: for in it the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is expressed. And it must be noticed that the form is not to be ended before the third washing.¹²

1251. Principles. - I. The valid matter of Baptism is natural water alone, or elementary water, apt for washing. It is of Faith. It is clear 1° from the words of Christ:¹ Unless a man has been born again of water, etc. - It is clear 2° from the Councils, especially from Florence in the Decree for the Armenians, and from Trent.² - "But what true and natural water is, although with the help of chemical analysis, confirmed by synthesis, it is sufficiently known to those skilled in natural science, nevertheless for theologians (on account especially of the difficulties which occur everywhere in defining the nature of mixtures) it seems that in place of a principle the admonition of the illustrious Author De re Sacrament. Tom. I. must rather be held, that concerning true and natural water judgment must be made from the common use of men, not from the disputes of philosophers."³ (W) p. 416.

II. The licit matter of Baptism, outside the case of necessity, is blessed or consecrated water alone, and mixed with chrism according to the rite of the Church, at least for solemn Baptism. This is clear from Canon Law (see below concerning the Ceremonies of Baptism). But he certainly sins gravely by the sin of sacrilege who without grave necessity uses impure, turbid, or foul water, although this is valid matter.⁴ (co) p. 401.

It is said: 1° outside the case of necessity, which case sometimes occurs in Missions. Concerning this the S. C. de P. F. wrote in 1806 to the Apostolic Vicar of Tonkin: "Where to preserve water blessed according to the prescribed rite would be of grave inconvenience or danger, in that case it will be lawful for Missionaries or anyone else who, according to the opportunity of things, is apt for conferring this Sacrament, to use common water, especially if it has been blessed,"⁵ for water of the baptismal font, which cannot be had except with grave inconvenience or danger.⁶

It is said: 2° according to the rite of the Church. - Concerning this, note that although water, as our Councils admonish,⁷ is to be blessed by the form in the Roman Ritual, if water thus blessed, because of the absence of a baptismal font in places where Baptisms are rare, is lacking, or has failed, or has been corrupted, it can also be blessed by that shorter formula which was approved for the use of our Missionaries by Pius VIII, and is found in the little book Excerpta ex Rit.,⁸ etc.

It is said: 3° impure, turbid, or foul water. - On this matter note the response of the S. C. Ing., Feria IV, 17 April 1839: "Baptisms conferred with" blessed "corrupted water were valid, although illicit outside the case of necessity; and in a case of necessity natural water is to be preferred; but provision must be made for the renewal of the water of the baptismal font, according to the Roman Ritual."⁹

III. In danger of death, if certainly valid matter cannot be had, doubtful matter ought to be used under this condition: If this matter is sufficient.... Then even a slight probability concerning the value of the matter suffices, because in necessity one must assist the neighbor in the best way in which it can be done. But if one baptized thus has survived, once there is availability of certainly valid matter, he ought to be baptized again under this condition: If thou art not baptized, I baptize thee, etc. - Common.

1252. Resolves. - 1° Valid matter is: 1) water of springs, wells, rivers, the sea, pools, marshes, lakes, cisterns; 2) water dissolved from ice, snow, or hail, because it preserves the same substance, although it has been accidentally changed as regards color, taste, or odor; 3) sulphurous or mineral water, water collected from vapor, dew, or flowing in stormy weather from a wall, leaves, etc.; 4) water simply distilled with roses or other flowers, yet not licit per se; 5) turbid water mixed with another substance, provided water is the truly and certainly predominant matter, so that according to the use or estimation of men it can still be called water.¹⁰

2° Invalid matter is: 1) milk, blood, tears, sweat, saliva, spittle, urine; 2) wine, oil, beer, thick broth from fat, etc.; 3) mud, ink. (2) p. 416.

3° Doubtful matter is: 1) very thin broth, lye, thin beer (water from dissolved salt?); 2) liquid flowing from a vine and other plants; 3) snow, ice, hoarfrost, and other similar things not yet dissolved,¹ coffee, tea.

1253. - The proximate matter of Baptism is ablution, which can be done in three ways, namely by immersion, sprinkling, and pouring, according to the practice of diverse Churches (which practice, namely of pouring among us, must be observed under grave obligation), so that by the moral judgment of men the baptized person is judged to have been washed. This is clear from the words of the form, and from the perpetual practice of the Church, and also from Paul, Eph.:¹ Cleansing by the laver of water in the word of life.

1254. Questions. - Query 1° Can a child in the womb of the mother validly be baptized?

Resp. Affirmatively, sufficiently probably, if the child in the womb is reached by water by means of some instrument; because, since the infant already exists as a wayfaring man, he can validly be baptized. It stands in the way that the child is still enveloped in the afterbirth, whose exterior membrane is part of the mother. But more recently an instrument has been invented by which the afterbirth is cut open; and thus water, another instrument being employed, can come to touch immediately the body itself of the fetus. Yet he is to be baptized under condition, because it is not certainly established whether Baptism conferred in this way is valid. Therefore, if the child "has put forth the head" from the womb "and danger of death is imminent," or if he is born, he is to be baptized again under condition. - "But if he has put forth another member which indicates vital motion, let him be baptized in that member if danger threatens; and then, if he is born alive, he will have to be baptized under condition."¹ - But the Baptism of one not yet perfectly born, for the sake of decency, is to be conferred by a lay person, and, unless others are lacking, not by a priest.

Query 2° Is Baptism valid if the water only touches the garments or hairs of the one to be baptized?

Resp. 1° If the water touches only the garments, Baptism is certainly invalid; because thus no one would say that the man is washed. 2° But it is probably valid if the water touches the hairs. But in practice the safer part is to be followed.¹ - Hence if the one to be baptized is covered with hair, let the priest either divide his hair with the fingers of the left hand while with the right he pours water, or let him baptize him on the forehead.

Query 3° Is Baptism valid when conferred in another part than on the head?

Resp. Affirmatively, probably, especially if Baptism is conferred on some more principal part, for example on the breast, shoulders, etc. Nevertheless, if necessity has compelled this, afterward, if it can be done, Baptism would have to be repeated under condition.² Cf. the things said in this number, Query 1°.

Query 4° Does one or another drop of water suffice for baptizing?

Resp. Negatively, probably, especially if the water does not flow, because it cannot be called ablution, which is altogether required for Baptism. - Thus commonly. Nevertheless it is probably doubtful matter, which in a case of necessity would have to be employed. But they commonly say that the matter is then certain if the one baptizing with the motion of a moistened finger should wash a part of the body.³ - But there is no doubt that it is certainly valid if water sprinkled in sufficient quantity truly flows down; since Baptism is validly conferred by sprinkling. (Q) p. 416.

Query 5° Is a threefold ablution required for Baptism?

Resp. 1° Certainly it is not required for validity; for one suffices, that someone be judged truly washed.

Resp. 2° But it is required for liceity, and indeed under grave obligation, where this threefold pouring of water is prescribed, as in the Roman Ritual.⁴ Yet these things seem to be understood of solemn Baptism.

St. Thomas, III, q. 66, a. 3, 4, 7, 8.

119. Errors. - Concerning the matter of Baptism several have erred. Certain Gnostics and Manichaeans, with Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Augustine as witnesses, excluded water from the conferral of Baptism, which they said had arisen from an evil principle; the followers of Marcus mixed oil with water; the disciples of Simon Magus and the Cathari, taking literally the words of Mt. III, 11, posited fire as the matter, and therefore they baptized in a dark place among lamps.

Luther and Beza contended that whatever can be in place of a bath, when water is lacking, is apt for Baptism. Calvin, although he acknowledged that water is required in Baptism, understood the word "water" in the text of John III, 5 metaphorically of living water, or the vivifying Spirit after the likeness of water. The Quakers repudiate Baptism of water as a Jewish rite, and acknowledge only spiritual Baptism, which is in the testimony of a good conscience and the reception of the Holy Spirit.

Baptists and Anabaptists, as also many Greek schismatics with Mark of Ephesus, admit only Baptism by immersion; they hold the mode more commonly used in the Latin Church from the fourteenth century to be invalid, or even heretical.

120. Principle I. The remote matter of Baptism is every natural water, and only natural water (can. 737). - It is defined as of faith in the Council of Trent, sess. 7, de Bapt., can. 2: "If anyone shall say that true and natural water is not of the necessity of Baptism (against Luther), and therefore shall twist those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: Unless someone shall have been born again of water and the Holy Spirit, to some metaphor (against Calvin), let him be anathema."

It is proved: 1. From the documents of revelation. Christ determined water (John III, 5 and 22-26); the Apostles baptize only in water (Acts VIII, 27-39; X, 44-48). Whence Paul calls Baptism the laver of water (Eph. V, 26), and Peter in I ep. III, 20: "The ark in which... souls were saved through water, which also of like form now saves you: Baptism." The primitive Church firmly holds this practice, as is established from the Didache VII; Ep. Barn. XI; Justin, Ap. I, 61; the Fathers refute the heretics who do not use water; all Liturgies from the beginning prescribe water; Innocent III declares water necessary for true Baptism. The Councils confess this: Lateran IV, c. 1; Vienne, const. de fide cath.; and Florence, for the Armenians.

2. From the fittingness of reason: "From divine institution water is the proper matter of Baptism; and this fittingly... a) with regard to the effects of Baptism, to which there correspond the properties of water, which by its humidity washes, from which it is fitting for signifying and causing the washing away of sins; by its coldness it also tempers the excess of heat, and from this it is suited to mitigating the concupiscence of the fomes; by its transparency it is receptive of light, whence it is suited to Baptism insofar as it is the sacrament of faith...; - b) because by reason of its commonness and abundance it is the fitting matter for the necessity of this sacrament: for it can easily be had everywhere" (a. 3).

121. For the validity of Baptism there is required natural or elementary water in a liquid state, i.e., everything which among men comes under the use and name of water.

Such is water of rivers, rain, a well, a spring, ponds, cisterns, a bath, marshes, lakes, the sea, whether it be bitter or poisonous or sweet, whether warm and boiling or cold and icy, whether blessed or not blessed. Likewise water dissolved from snow, ice, hail, dew, mists, condensed vapors, or flowing from stones (which is called the sweat of pavement), leaves, or walls in rainy or winter time; likewise water obtained by chemical art or by distillation of another element, if it is pure from foreign elements; likewise water mixed with foreign matter in a small quantity, provided not only chemically but also according to common estimation water certainly predominates and it is still called water, for example, putrid water (Holy Office, April 17, 1839), turbid or somewhat muddy water, mineral, sulphurous, ferruginous water, etc.

Hence 1. invalid matter includes: wine, oil, juice of flesh or fat, humors of an animal or human body: milk, blood, urine, saliva, tears, sweat, phlegm, amniotic fluid, spittle, phlegmatic discharges, etc.; - juice expressed from trees, fruits (apples, pears, cherries), flowers, herbs, roots, grains; - snow, ice, hail, hoarfrost, vapor, and other things not dissolved, because they are not apt for washing; - water very much mixed, so that it has more of a foreign substance than of water, or is no longer apt for washing, for example, mud, ink, very good beer, good coffee, good tea, good broth, lye. For all these things are not water; or if they are, according to common estimation they do not have the use or name of water.

2. Doubtful matter includes thin broth, lye not too thick, small beer, ordinary tea-water or coffee-water, weak ink, water dissolved from salt, artificial water extracted by distillation from flowers or herbs, for example, rose-water, violet-water, etc., or water flowing from a vine or trees.

122. For liceity there is required pure and clean water; but in solemn Baptism, water specially consecrated for this. Solemn Baptism, however, is that which is ministered with all the ceremonies (can. 737, § 2), as, outside danger of death, it is regularly to be conferred (can. 759, § 2).

He sins gravely, against reverence for the sacrament, who without necessity uses impure, dirty, turbid water, - or who in solemn Baptism does not use consecrated water (can. 757, § 1): but if in a case of necessity consecrated water is lacking, blessed water is to be used; otherwise natural water (Holy Office, June 20, 1883); outside the case of necessity new water is to be blessed (April 17, 1839).

In merely private, or non-solemn, Baptism, it is better to use blessed water, - or, if the one baptizing is a priest or deacon, even consecrated water; others cannot use consecrated water.

123. Principle II. The proximate matter of Baptism is the exterior washing of the body, - which can be valid not only by immersion, but also by infusion or sprinkling. - The first pertains to the faith, as is established from the universal preaching and use of the Church, and from the very signification of the name: Baptism is indicated in many places of Scripture (Acts II, 38; XXII, 16; I Cor. VI, 11; Eph. V, 26; Tit. III, 5; Heb. X, 22), and is clear from the unanimous testimony of the Fathers and Liturgies (can. 737).

The second is certain from the doctrine of the Church, which is established from the rituals and from the practice of the liturgy, and is reported in the Code of Law, can. 758; to this also can be referred the definition of the Council of Trent, sess. 7, de Bapt., can. 3.

It is proved: 1. The name Baptism, although etymologically it signifies immersion, nevertheless by common use, also reported in the Scriptures, signifies every washing (n. 111).

2. To the essence of Baptism there pertains the washing of water by which the interior washing away of sins is signified; when this is preserved, the essence of the sacrament is preserved. But it is preserved not only by immersion, but also by infusion or sprinkling, which, provided the water flows, truly washes. Therefore not only by immersion, but also by infusion or sprinkling, the essence and consequently the validity of Baptism is preserved.

3. From the beginning, the mode of baptizing by infusion or sprinkling was sometimes used, as the Didache VII, 3, explicitly testifies. Besides, the Apostles themselves seem thus to have baptized at Pentecost three thousand men on one day, and on another five thousand men (Acts II, 41), since in these circumstances the rite of immersion would scarcely have been possible; likewise when St. Paul baptized the jailer in prison (XVI, 33). And in Baptism by immersion, which was the ordinary rite, immersion among adults was not customarily total, but the water rose up to the knees or the middle of the body and at the same time was poured over the head. Moreover the Baptism of the sick, who were baptized while lying in bed, was held as valid; and martyrs in prison or in the very place of execution were baptized by pouring.

4. "Sometimes a necessity can threaten (of baptizing otherwise than by immersion) on account of scarcity of water, or on account of weakness in the one to be baptized, to whom danger of death can threaten from immersion. And therefore it must be said that immersion is not of the necessity of Baptism" (a. 7).

Nor does it stand in the way that by immersion alone our being placed with Christ in the tomb is figured (Rom. VI, 3). - For "in immersion the figure of Christ's burial is represented more expressly..., but in the other modes of baptizing it is represented in some way, although not so expressly: for in whatever way the washing is done, the body of man, or some part of it, is placed under the water, just as the body of Christ was placed under the earth" (ad 2). Besides, this figurative signification in Baptism is merely secondary.

124. For the validity of Baptism there is required a washing of the one to be baptized by the one baptizing; otherwise the sense of the form would not be verified, and besides universal tradition so holds. It is said:

1. Washing, for which it is required that water immediately and physically touch the body and successively flow and run over some part of it, so that it is judged washed or cleansed. Yet for this a small quantity suffices; nor is it necessary that bodily filth be wiped away: for the washing of Baptism is ordered only to spiritual amendment. It can be done either a) by motion of the one to be baptized in the water, or b) by motion of the water upon the one to be baptized; namely:

a) By immersion, for which it is required 1. that someone be moved in or under the water; whence Baptism would be invalid if someone were held unmoved in unmoved water; 2. and probably, according to some, also that he be drawn out of the water.

Hence the killing ablution by which someone would throw an infant into a river is doubtfully valid; moreover it is gravely illicit, because evils are not to be done that goods may come: for the very throwing into a place from which the child cannot be rescued is already of itself evil, as tending directly to killing alone, nor does it immediately have a good effect, as washing does, but only mediately and per accidens, because in fact it terminates rather at water and washing than at something else. Namely, in the case, washing is the effect of the throwing, which, even if it were not done into water, would nevertheless cause death.¹ - Yet it is licit to wash with icy water, when another is lacking, even if death were feared to be somewhat accelerated, because this action per se and immediately tends to washing and sanctification, not to killing; whence death would come about per accidens and would be compensated by the more excellent good of eternal life.

¹ Billuart, de Baptismo, art. 3, § III.

b) Also by infusion and by sprinkling, although this last mode is dangerous in practice. For both, some motion of the water is required.

Whence invalid matter is the mere touch of water without flow, such as a drop or a wet cloth remaining on the forehead; washing performed by one or another drop, or after the manner of an anointing, is easily doubtful (Holy Office, December 14, 1898); it is valid if someone by the motion of a finger or wetted cloth washed a part of the body.

2. Washing of the one to be baptized, i.e., a) of the whole body or of a principal part, namely, of the head, in which all the interior and exterior senses flourish (a. 7, ad 3).

Baptism is valid if it is done upon a head covered with an ulcerous crust, because the crust is nothing but the skin of the infant foully disfigured by disease, and otherwise a man whose whole head was covered with smallpox could neither be washed nor baptized; - Baptism is doubtful if the washing is done on other members than the head, because in none is there the integrity of life as in the head; and it is the more doubtful in proportion as it is done on a less notable member and one more remote from the head; whence it is more probably valid if it is done over the heart, chest, neck, shoulder blades, shoulders; more doubtful on the arm or leg; very doubtful on the foot, hand, finger (can. 746, § 2 and 3).

b) of the body itself, which must be touched physically and immediately.

Hence there is doubt concerning the value of Baptism conferred on the hair, even of the head, because it is not certain that hair is part of the body;² it is more doubtful if on the beard or nails; very doubtful if on the umbilical cord or on one of the two membranes which immediately envelop the infant in the mother's womb and which arise from the ovum: for although they are of fetal origin, nevertheless they are not a permanent part of the infant but rather a covering or transitory instrument; almost certainly invalid if it is done on the third exterior membrane enveloping the fetus, because this arises from the substance of the mother; invalid if on the clothes or body of the mother (Holy Office, May 21, 1671).

² But if the head is covered with hair, the priest, while with the right hand he pours water over the crown of the head, ought with the left to part the hair, or take care that the water runs over the temples of the head, or, what in practice is easier, confer Baptism on the forehead, because nowhere is it prescribed that washing must be done on the crown. (Cf. Noldin, Th. M., III, n. 60). - Some, such as Lugo and Génicot, think that Baptism conferred on the hair is as certain as on the skin, for if the hairs of an animal are washed, the animal is said to be washed. Yet it can be answered that this is true of an animal which cannot be washed otherwise, not of man, who by his nature does not have hair everywhere, and therefore is capable of being washed immediately.

3. Washing by the one baptizing: for if it were done by the one baptized, or by a third party, or by a natural cause alone, for example, while a child slips into water, the words would be false: I baptize you. Whence Baptism is invalid in which the form is pronounced, but not by the one who does the washing (S.C.S., November 17, 1916).

Baptism is valid if someone holds an infant under water falling without the help of another or already poured out by another, because the one holding is the sole cause of the washing; but if another intends or knows that he is pouring water upon the infant, Baptism is doubtful, because there is doubt whether the one who holds, or the one by whose aid the water descends, is the cause of the washing.

125. For liceity, that mode of washing is to be observed which is in use among the individual Churches (can. 758). - The Greeks baptize by threefold immersion, which they can also use while they are staying among Latins; but in the Latin Church generally the washing is to be done by threefold infusion performed in the manner of a cross.

He sins gravely who, in solemn Baptism, changes the usual mode of washing, or does not do the threefold infusion. Threefold washing in honor of the Most Holy Trinity was used from the beginning of the Church, as the Didache, VII, 4, testifies.

I say 1st. The valid remote matter of Baptism is only true and natural water; but the licit matter, outside the case of necessity, is only the same water, yet not turbid or foul, and moreover in solemn baptism water blessed for this must be employed. Cf. Can. 757, § 1. The first is clear from the Council of Trent, sess. 7, can. 2, de Baptismo, where these things are had: "If anyone shall have said that true and natural water is not of the necessity of Baptism, and therefore shall have twisted to some metaphor the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: 'Unless someone has been reborn from water and the Holy Spirit,' let him be anathema." But the other is clear from the Roman Ritual and the unanimous consent of theologians. - I said outside the case of necessity, because in danger of death any matter whatever, provided that it is not certainly invalid, can and must be employed under this condition: If this matter is sufficient. - But if he who was baptized with such matter has survived, when an abundance of certainly valid matter is had, he must be baptized again under this condition: If you are not baptized, I baptize you, etc. - But just as, according to St. Alphonsus, even a slight probability concerning the validity of the matter suffices for baptizing under the first condition, so also a slight probability concerning its invalidity suffices for rebaptizing under the other condition. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 102; and Hom. Ap., n. 8.

I say 2nd. The proximate matter of Baptism is washing, which can be done in three ways, namely by immersion, sprinkling, and pouring, according to the practice of the different Churches, so that by the moral judgment of men the baptized person is judged to have been washed. This is clear from the words of the form and the perpetual practice of the Church.

I say 3rd. Although baptism can be conferred validly either by pouring, or by immersion, or by sprinkling, nevertheless the first or second manner, or one mixed from both, which is more in use, is to be retained, according to the approved ritual books of the different Churches (Can. 758); so that with a triple washing the head of the one to be baptized is poured over, or he is immersed in the manner of a cross at one and the same time at which the words are pronounced, and the same one is applying the water and pronouncing the words. - Cf. Roman Ritual, Tit. II, c. 1, n. 10.

Question 1. What is the rule for knowing true and natural water?

Resp. The best rule of all is to have recourse to the common use and estimation of God-fearing men, leaving aside those things which are discussed by naturalists. Hence:

1st. Valid matter is: 1st. water of springs, wells, rivers, the sea, ponds, marshes, lakes; 2nd. water dissolved from ice, snow, or hail, because it preserves the same substance, although it is accidentally changed as to color, taste, or odor; 3rd. sulfurous or mineral water, water collected from vapor, dew, or flowing in rainy weather from a wall, leaves, etc.; 4th. turbid water, mixed with another substance, provided that water is truly and certainly the predominant matter.

2nd. Invalid matter is: 1st. milk, blood, tears, sweat, saliva, spittle, urine; 2nd. wine, oil, beer, thick juice from fat, etc.; 3rd. mud, ink; 4th. snow or ice not yet dissolved, because in this state it is not natural water, although some doubt concerning this, for ice is dissolved by contact, and thus some washing can be had.

3rd. Doubtful matter is: 1st. very thin broth, lye, thin beer, water from dissolved salt; 2nd. moisture flowing from a vine and other plants. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 103 and seq. - Cretoni, vol. 2, p. 134. - Lehmkuhl, nn. 58 and seq.

Question 2. What must be done in the case in which consecrated water, which is preserved in the baptismal font, appears diminished and foul?

Resp. It must be noted first of all that baptismal water often appears turbid and foul on account of chrism which perhaps has been mixed into it in too great a quantity, but in reality it is not so.

§ 2. If blessed water in the baptistery is so diminished that it seems less than sufficient, other non-blessed water is to be mixed in, even repeatedly, yet in lesser quantity.

§ 3. But if it has become corrupt, or has flowed out, or in any way has failed, the parish priest is to pour fresh water into the font, well cleaned and neat, and bless it by the proper rite prescribed in his liturgical books (Can. 757).

Among us the formula approved for our use is to be employed. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 102. - Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, n. 234. - Cretoni, vol. 2, p. 134. - Excerpts from the Roman Ritual, p. 238, edition 1878.

Question 3. Can a child in the womb of the mother be validly baptized?

Resp. Affirmatively, if he is touched by water by means of some instrument, because an infant enclosed in the womb of the mother is already a wayfaring man. But since some doubt concerning the validity of this Baptism, because such an infant, since he cannot properly be said to have been born, cannot be reborn, therefore it would have to be repeated under condition, and a fortiori if the water does not touch the child immediately.

Concerning this matter the new Code establishes these things:

§ 1. No one enclosed in the womb of the mother is to be baptized until there is probable hope that, once duly brought forth, he can be baptized.

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

§ 3. If he has put forth another member, he is to be baptized on it under condition, if danger is imminent; but then, if once born he lives, he is again to be baptized under condition.

§ 5. A fetus baptized in the womb, after birth, must be baptized again under condition (Can. 746).

Several physicians, in a case of necessity, are accustomed to baptize infants especially in the womb of the mother with water mixed with corrosive bichloride of mercury (in English, Bichloride of Mercury). This water is composed by a solution of one part of this mercuric chloride in a thousand parts of water, and the mixture is employed lest the uterus be affected by disease. This use is licit where there is a true danger of disease. Thus from S. C. S. O., 21 Aug. 1901. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 107. - Lehmkuhl, nn. 61 and seq.

Question 4. Is Baptism valid if the water touches only the garments or hair of the one to be baptized?

Resp. If the water touches only the garments, Baptism is certainly invalid; because thus no one would say that a man is washed; but it is more probably valid if the water touches the hair. But in practice the safer part is to be followed. Hence if the one to be baptized has hair, let the priest either part his hair with the fingers of the left hand while he pours water with the right, or baptize him on the forehead. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 107, q. 3.

Question 5. Is Baptism valid when conferred on another part than on the head?

Resp. Affirmatively, more probably, especially if Baptism is conferred on some more principal part, for example, on the breast, shoulders, etc. Nevertheless if necessity has compelled this, afterward, if it can be done, Baptism would have to be repeated under condition. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 107, q. 4.

Question 6. Does one or another drop of water suffice for baptizing?

Resp. Negatively, more probably, especially if the water does not flow, because it cannot be called washing, which is altogether required for Baptism; yet it is doubtful matter, which in a case of necessity would have to be employed. But theologians commonly say that it is certain matter if the one baptizing, by the movement of a wetted finger, were to wash a part of the body. Nevertheless, concerning certain persons baptized after the manner of an anointing on the forehead with the thumb wetted in baptismal water, the Holy Inquisition, 14 Dec. 1898, responded: "Care is to be taken that they be baptized again privately, under condition, with only the matter together with the form being employed, without ceremonies." - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 107, q. 6. - Elbel, n. 16.

Question 7. Is triple washing required for Baptism?

Resp. Certainly it is not required for validity; for a single washing suffices that one be judged truly washed. Thus all with St. Thomas, 3, q. 66, art. 8. But it is required for liceity, and indeed under grave obligation, because it is prescribed in the Roman Ritual, although this prescription seems to be understood only of solemn Baptism.

Question 8. What are the causes on account of which conditional Baptism is customarily conferred?

Resp. "For nearly three causes we have found that it has prevailed by the custom of the Church that a condition be employed in conferring Baptism: when it is prudently doubted whether Baptism previously conferred is valid or not; when necessity compels doubtful matter to be employed; when it is doubted whether the subject is capable of Baptism, as in monstrous births, or as in a difficult birth when it is doubted whether the sacrament can be confected by washing that part which alone can be washed; in one word, according to the custom of the Church, a condition is employed in Baptism when there is place for doubting whether something has been lacking or is lacking which is required for the validity of the sacrament." S. C. d. P. Fide, 17 April 1777.

The conditions required for the licit reception of Baptism must be carefully distinguished from those which are necessary for valid reception. . . . "In doubt whether an adult near death has been sufficiently instructed concerning the mysteries of faith and has sufficiently believed them, and in doubt whether he sincerely repents of his past life, when the necessity of death urges, the sacrament must be ministered to him absolutely without any condition. In doubt whether he truly intends to receive baptism, if after a previous diligent examination there is still doubt concerning this intention, baptism must be conferred under condition, provided that he is capable of baptism." 3 Aug. 1860, Holy Office.

IV. QUESTION IV. What water is to be called natural? ANSWER. That natural water alone is the matter of Baptism all Catholics affirm. What is to be called natural water the Roman Ritual published by order of Gregory XIII answers: it is the water of springs, wells, the sea, rivers, lakes, ponds, and marshes, and rain-water; and let it be simple and pure of whatever kind, which retains the proper species of water: nor does it matter whether it be cold or hot: but it is not artificial water, such as is expressed or distilled from roses, flowers, herbs, or like things, nor any other liquor whatsoever. In how many ways natural water can be corrupted St. Thomas explains, III, q. 66, art. 4. For the rest, there is no need of philosophers' disputations; the common judgment of men suffices for discerning natural water.

VI. QUESTION V. What is the proximate matter of Baptism? ANSWER. It is the use of water, by which the body is washed. A threefold manner of washing has obtained: by immersion, by infusion, and by aspersion. Immersion was first threefold, afterwards simple obtained. In the early centuries of the Church the discipline of triple immersion flourished, and in the thirteenth century it still obtained. About the fourteenth century the usage obtained of baptizing by aspersion or infusion. In whatever manner Baptism be conferred — whether by immersion, or by infusion, or by aspersion — it is valid. Nevertheless the rite of one's own Church is to be observed; and he who without compelling necessity should change it would sin gravely. Such infusion or aspersion ought to be made so that the baptized may according to the common sense be truly said to be washed.

Being about twenty-five miles from his church, my curate was called upon to administer the Sacrament of Baptism. He did so, using for the unctions the oleum infirmorum, the only oils he had with him. I need scarcely state the oil was oleum ab episcopo benedictum. Was he justified? Or, is it necessary now to repeat the unctions, et absolute, using the oils blessed for Baptism? I have read the case in the “Casuist” on Extreme Unction, studied the case carefully and came to the same conclusion as is given. But this seems to me an altogether different case, in which the oleum catechumenorum and the sacrum chrisma are absolutely necessary.

Answer.—The oils prescribed by the ritual to be used in the solemn administration of Baptism are the oleum salutis or oleum catechumenorum, and the sacrum chrisma. The oil of catechumens is also called oleum sanctum. It is oil of olives blessed with exorcisms by the bishop on Holy Thursday, and the catechumen or postulant for Baptism is to be anointed with it before he is baptized. Baruffaldi calls it: “Oil exorcised in order to make the person anointed with it a true athlete of Christ, so that he may be able to endure patiently in conflict and adversity.” (Comment. Rom. Rit. tit. x, n. 4.)

The holy chrism, wherewith the newly baptized is anointed immediately after being baptized, consists of oil of olives mixed with balsam, likewise blessed by the bishop on Holy Thursday. This chrism is the same that the bishop uses in the administration of the Sacrament of Confirmation. In the early ages of the Church, the bishop was usually the minister of Baptism, and he anointed the neophytes on the forehead with chrism immediately after baptizing them, so that the chrism used by the bishop was in reality for the Sacrament of Confirmation. The unction on the top of the head by the priest was introduced to supply for the unction on the forehead by the bishop when the bishop was absent and when, consequently, Confirmation could not be immediately conferred as usual. Later on, even when the bishop was present and confirmed immediately after Baptism, if a priest baptized he also anointed with chrism, but not on the forehead, but on the top of the neophyte’s head.

Since, therefore, the oil of catechumens is blessed with special exorcism, and to serve for the anointing of those who are about to be baptized, and since the chrism used in Baptism must be the same as used for the Sacrament of Confirmation, it is evident that they may not be replaced by the oleum infirmorum without sin. Baruffaldi says that if by inadvertence one oil is substituted for another, it would be a venial sin; but if the substitution were the result of carelessness or negligence, it would be a mortal sin. “Does a priest sin if, when administering Baptism, he takes and uses one oil in place of another, for example, the oil of chrism in place of the oil of catechumens? To this I answer that, apart from inadvertence, which causes only a venial sin, he would sin gravely if he did this negligently.” And he maintains that the unctions are to be repeated, although they are not of the essence of baptism. “Because those oils are applied for distinct effects, and in the false administration the words would not agree with the effect of the oil, and thus the signification would be frustrated; for if changing a word in the administration is a sin and the Sacrament must be repeated, much more must this be done when the matter is changed. In this case, however, theologians are divided among various opinions. Someone will say: Oil is not the matter of Baptism, either proximate or remote, but something sacramental. I answer: the anointing with oil must be repeated, not the washing with water.” (Tit. x, 19-20.)

Baruffaldi admits at the same time that there are many theologians against him in this view of the matter.

It is evident that it is not so serious a matter to substitute one oil for another in administering Baptism, since there is no question of the validity of the Sacrament. But this is not so in Confirmation and Extreme Unction. Even in Baptism, says O’Kane (Rubrics, 260), the mistake is a serious one and ought to be corrected at the moment if the error is detected and can be at once repaired. If, however, the mistake is discovered only some time afterwards, O’Kane thinks that Baruffaldi’s opinion is too severe, and he inclines to the opinion of Falise, who does not insist on a repetition of the unctions in Baptism, because: 1. One oil is probably a valid substitute for another even when it is question of a Sacrament; with much more reason, therefore, may one be substituted for another where there is no question of a Sacrament, but only of a rite; 2 the omission of the rite does little or no injury; 3. the repetition of the rite would often be an occasion of murmur and scandal. If, by mistake, one oil has been substituted for another in Baptism, Falise agrees with Baruffaldi that the mistake ought to be corrected a moins toutefois que les circonstances n’indiquent la marche contraire. (Falise, Du Baptéme, ch. II. n. 8).

If a repetition of the unctions would cause scandal or adverse comment, they are not to be repeated.

In the case given here, it would scarcely be prudent to repeat the unctions given with the oleum infirmorum. Such repetition would arouse comment and adverse criticism very likely and lessen the people’s confidence in the curate. It would be better to let the matter remain as it is. Ante factum, however, it would have been better to have omitted the unctions altogether and to have advised the parents of the child to this effect, and then later on to have supplied them, data opportunitate, with the proper oils. Fr. Genicot, S.J., gives a case in his Casus Conscientiae (I. cap. 4, n. 1) similar to the one we are considering. A priest journeys about three miles to administer Baptism in a private chapel. Upon arriving at the chapel he discovers that he has forgotten the baptismal oils. He administers Baptism just the same, omitting the unctions, however. Later on he fails to supply the unctions. Genicot does not blame this priest, provided he carried out all the other ceremonies of Baptism. It would be asking too much, he says, to require this priest either to defer the baptism, or to make a journey of six miles (home and back again) to get the oils. And this seems to agree with an answer of the S. C. de P. F., Jan. 21, 1789, which says that a sufficient reason for omitting the solemnities of Baptism would be “any reasonable and grave cause which prevents the administration of those same solemnities.” But the unctions should have been supplied later on, the same author says, “When a suitable time and opportunity are available, in a church or oratory, as is added in the cited response.”

Of course, if the curate in our case did not think that there would be offered later on an opportunity of supplying the unctions with the proper oils, it was better to use doubtful matter to administer a rite than not to administer the rite at all. If, however, the unctions could have been supplied later on, the curate should have waited until he could procure the proper oils.