Who May be Baptized

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article Fourth. On Those to Be Baptized Under Condition

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

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

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

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

⁴ Holy Office, 30 Mar. 1898.

⁵ Holy Office, 1 Apr. 1898.

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

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

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

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

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

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

¹ Holy Office, 21 Feb. 1883.

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

³ S. C. de Prop. Fide, 6 June 1860.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

¹ S. C. de Prop. Fid., 30 Sept. 1848.

² Holy Office, 13 Apr. 1878.

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

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

¹ Sess. vi, c. 6.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With respect to the reception of Baptism, both valid and licit, we refer to those things which we noted in the treatise On the Sacraments in general (n. 39 and following). Nevertheless, it is pleasing to enlarge what was said about licit reception with these things concerning the Baptism of an adult. Therefore in an adult to be baptized there are required:

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

II. Instruction, according to these things in canon 752:

1. An adult is not to be baptized unless knowing and willing and well instructed (§ 1).

2. But in danger of death, if he cannot be instructed more diligently in the principal mysteries of faith, it is sufficient, for Baptism to be conferred, that he in some way show that he assents to them and seriously promise that he will observe the commandments of the Christian religion (§ 2).

3. Indeed, if because of impending death or other circumstances instruction cannot be premised, nevertheless Baptism is to be conferred, even if explicit faith is lacking in those things which are only probably to be believed by necessity of means.

4. Finally, if it is doubted whether a dying person has reached the state of discretion, let him be instructed in the better way in which it can be done.¹

¹ Holy Office, 18 July 1892, reply to IV (Nouvelle Revue Theologique, 1897, p. 95).

III. Attrition, and indeed supernatural attrition, concerning mortal sins, if any have been committed by the one to be baptized (canon 752, § 1). Habitual attrition suffices, that is, attrition elicited and not retracted. Attrition cannot be had concerning original sin; nevertheless a certain displeasure about it is required. Contrition and attrition are "sorrow regarding and in some way breaking down the hardness of the will; and therefore they can exist only concerning those sins which come upon us from the hardness of our will; and because original sin has not been introduced by our will, but contracted from the origin of a vitiated nature, therefore concerning it there cannot be contrition, properly speaking, but only displeasure or sorrow" (St. Thomas, Supplement, q. 2, a. 2). The required displeasure is always had in him who supplies the other requisites.

Hope and initial love are also required; but these too are always found in him who enjoys the dispositions explained.

IV. It is fitting that both the priest who is about to baptize adults and the adults themselves, if they are healthy, be fasting. Unless grave and urgent causes stand in the way, a baptized adult should immediately assist at the sacrifice of the Mass and receive Holy Communion (canon 753).¹

Corollary. Confession of sins is not to be imposed on an adult to be baptized absolutely. Nevertheless it is usefully instituted, so that the one to be baptized may be admonished about vices and better disposed for Baptism (St. Thomas, III, q. 68, a. 6). Nor are satisfactory works to be imposed, because Baptism is ordered to removing every debt both of guilt and of punishment.

¹ Roman Ritual, title 2, chapter 3, n. 7.

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

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

"Generally speaking, those are to be held as Christians concerning whom it is doubted whether they have been validly baptized. Baptism is to be judged valid in order to the validity of Marriage." S. O. 9 Sept. 1868. Cf. On Matrimony, N. 831.

“Is it necessary that the mystery of the Eucharist be explained to an adult to be baptized?—Response. Adults outside danger of death are, speaking in itself, bound to receive such explanation, unless some motive to the contrary is so pressing that the prudent missionary judges a delay until after Baptism expedient. As regards one dying, he is likewise bound, unless either time is lacking or so great a disturbance of mind is foreseen in him that it could withdraw him from receiving Baptism.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 10 May 1703; C. 552.

“1. It is not lawful to baptize an adult barbarian, rude and stupid, who does not believe explicitly in the Lord Jesus Christ; rather, the missionary is bound to instruct him concerning all those things which are necessary by a necessity of means, according to the capacity of the one to be baptized.—2. It is not lawful to baptize a sick barbarian if the missionary is morally certain that, according to the measure of his own capacity, he has not sufficiently understood the mysteries of the Christian religion explained to him, or does not sufficiently believe them, and promises that he will observe the commandments of that religion solely from a motive of not contradicting. But if the missionary prudently believes that the sick barbarian, when he says, ‘I believe and I will do,’ then truly believes sufficiently and seriously promises that he will observe them as above, he ought to be baptized. But if the missionary doubts about the foregoing, time is lacking to instruct him better, and danger of death is imminent, he ought also to be baptized conditionally.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 10 May 1703 and 23 August 1703, to the Bishop of Quebec; C. 551, 589.

“In the papers transmitted by Your Excellency to the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, it was set forth that a certain missionary is rather frequently called to confer Baptism upon dying adults who, although they profess that they would willingly receive the Baptism proposed to them, that they truly renounce the devil, believe in God, and repent of their past life, nevertheless, from the circumstances, leave the greatest doubt concerning the sincerity of dispositions of this kind. The aforesaid missionary, wishing to consult on the one hand the reverence of the Sacrament and on the other hand the eternal salvation of the sick person now about to die, confers Baptism under this condition, ‘if you are truly disposed,’ expressly intending not to baptize if good dispositions are absent. Hence it was asked: 1. Whether such a manner of conferring Baptism is lawful or not.

“It was further set forth that some of those sick persons, after receiving Baptism under such a condition, afterward survive and indeed sometimes recover entirely from their illness and can be more rightly disposed; and it was asked: 2. Whether those who survive and are more rightly disposed ought all indiscriminately to be baptized again, at least under this condition, ‘if you have not been baptized.’

“The Sacred Congregation of the Supreme and Universal Inquisition, to whose judgment these doubts were referred, a mature examination having been employed concerning them, commanded that a response be given by the present Instruction on Wednesday in August 1870.

“It is an established matter that three dispositions are required in an adult for the right reception of Baptism: namely, faith, repentance, and the intention of receiving it. Faith is indeed necessary, by which the adult ought to be sufficiently instructed, according to the measure of his own understanding, concerning the mysteries of the Christian religion and firmly to believe them. Repentance is likewise necessary, by which he ought to grieve over his sins and elicit an act either of contrition or of attrition. Third, the intention or will of receiving this Sacrament is necessarily required, and when it is lacking, the character of Baptism is not imprinted upon the adult. Faith and repentance, however, are required in the adult so that he may lawfully receive the Sacrament and attain the fruit of the Sacrament; but intention is necessary for validly attaining it, such that an adult who is baptized without faith and repentance is indeed baptized unlawfully but validly; and, on the contrary, one who is baptized without the will to receive the Sacrament is baptized neither lawfully nor validly. These things having been premised, it will be easy to recognize that the missionary in the proposed case did not conduct himself rightly when, in administering Baptism to a dying adult, he put on the same footing the dispositions required for Baptism to be lawfully administered and those necessarily required for it to be validly received. For in a doubt whether an adult near death is sufficiently instructed concerning the mysteries of the faith and sufficiently believes them, and in a doubt whether he sincerely repents of his past life, when the necessity of death presses, the Sacrament ought to be administered to him absolutely, without any condition. But in a doubt whether he truly intends to receive Baptism, if after a previous diligent examination there is still doubt concerning this intention, Baptism ought to be conferred under the condition, provided that he is capable of Baptism. Lest, however, a certain norm be lacking for a missionary of this kind, the Decree of the same Congregation of the Supreme and Universal Inquisition, issued on Thursday before His Holiness on 23 August 1703 concerning a question proposed by the Bishop of Quebec, is transmitted here annexed to Your Excellency. (Cf. here part 2, no. 2.) Furthermore, the missionary did not conduct himself rightly when, in conferring Baptism under a condition, he intended not to baptize if good dispositions were absent in the recipient of Baptism; for in the case the missionary ought to intend only to baptize insofar as the recipient is capable of Baptism, that is, sincerely wills to receive it.

“Finally, concerning the second doubt, it must be observed that Baptism is not to be repeated commonly and rashly, not even conditionally, and that it is lawful to use a condition only when there is a prudent and probable doubt whether someone was validly baptized, as is handed down in the Roman Catechism, part 2, On the Sacrament of Baptism, no. 57.

“But if the foregoing does not suffice to resolve the doubts of the missionaries, Your Excellency shall take care to set them forth to the Sacred Congregation, so that, all the circumstances having been weighed, they may be removed.” Instruction of the Holy Office, 6 June 1860, to the Apostolic Vicar of Zhejiang.

“Generally speaking, those concerning whom it is doubted whether they were validly baptized are to be regarded as Christians. The Baptism is to be judged valid in relation to the validity of marriage.” Holy Office, 9 September 1868.

Negative doubts are not admitted, and therefore Baptism cannot be repeated. Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 30 September 1848; C. 652.

“In judging whether Baptism is to be repeated under a conditional form, neither excessive difficulty nor excessive facility is to be employed.” Instruction of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 23 June 1830.

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

You will resolve: Infants are validly baptized, likewise the perpetually insane, who have never used reason and therefore are judged to be of the same condition as infants. But if they have at some time used reason, more probably baptism is not valid unless before insanity they asked for it. In practice, however, these would be baptized conditionally, both because it is not plainly clear that they did not ask for baptism, and also because according to many it suffices if someone had the will of receiving all things necessary for salvation. Cf. 383. - If it is doubtful whether an infant lives, he is to be baptized conditionally.

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

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

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

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

Are infants to be baptized at once? - "It must be noted that they sin gravely who defer baptizing an infant for much time. This is common among all... and in the Ritual it is said: Let the pastor exhort that a sacrament so greatly necessary not be too much deferred for children, with danger to salvation... More commonly and more probably the delay is not grave unless 10 or 11 days are exceeded." L. 118. The Salmanticenses judge that it is not mortal to defer for 15 or even 20 days, even without an urgent cause.

Indeed others with Suarez say that it is not a grave delay if it does not reach a month, although there is no cause; but when a cause stands, if it is not extended to two months. The reason indeed for not notably deferring baptism is "the danger of death, which must always be feared in children." St. Thomas 3 p., q. 68, a. 3 ad 1. - Trent sess. 5, Decree on Original Sin; sess. 7, c. 12; Roman Ritual tit. 2, cap. 1, n. 27; cap. 3, n. 4-6; Roman Catechism 34; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 88, a. 3, 9; E. M.

Are children rightly baptized against the will of their parents? - It is certain 1. that such baptism is valid; 2. that this baptism is also licit if it concerns the children of Catholics, since they are subject to the laws of the Church. D. Gousset does not easily concede this if impious parents have altogether refused. Yet Gousset himself observes that the contrary is common. For this can be done cautiously without any danger; and since the child still lives among Catholics, perversion is not so greatly to be feared. But it is not expedient to resolve this question practically without the counsel of the bishop.

If it concerns the children of unbelievers, Scotus affirms that they are licitly baptized against the will of the parents; but the more common opinion, and the one to be held in practice, which the Thomists defend, teaches that, generally speaking, the children of unbelievers are baptized illicitly if their parents are or are judged likely to be opposed, although otherwise they are civilly subject to Christian Princes. For those baptized are either taken away from their parents, and injury is done to them; for it is of natural law that the child, before he has the use of reason, is under the care of the father; or they are left with those same parents, and injury is done to the sacrament, since it is exposed to irreverence. Whence it is also not licit to baptize them, although they are spontaneously offered by each parent, whenever those same infants must be left under the power and education of those same unbelieving parents. This is confirmed from the practice of the Church and from Benedict XIV both in Instr. Postremo mense, Feb. 28, 1747, and in Epist. Probe te. Indeed, as regards the children of Hebrews, there is the Constitution of Julius III, who imposed upon delinquents suspension and a penalty of one thousand ducats.

Generally speaking. For they will also be licitly baptized: 1. If the parents are our slaves; for then they are rather of our law than of theirs. 2. If either parent asks, because his or her just will is to be preferred to the unjust will of the other in favor of faith and of the offspring; or if, the father being dead, the paternal grandfather consents, even with the mother resisting, since paternal power is with him, or at least the paternal grandmother, although wholly lacking paternal power, namely in favor of faith. But there is need that a reasonable hope be present that the infant will afterward be educated in a Christian manner. Benedict XIV, Instr. Postremo § 16, 28; Epist. Probe te § 17, 18. 3. If the infant is in danger of death, provided this is done without scandal, and therefore no greater hatred of unbelievers against the Christian religion and savagery against Christians is stirred up; for then provision is made for the good of the offspring, without injury being done to anyone, since by death he is to be withdrawn from all power of men. Provided this is done without scandal, wherefore no force is to be used, and nothing is to be done which brings grave offense of the people. For no one is bound to disturb public order, nor can he excite scandal in order to aid an infant. 4. If, already master of his own reason, he seeks baptism of himself; because in the matter of Religion he is already of his own law, provided it cannot prudently be doubted lest afterward he fall away from the Catholic Religion. Benedict XIV, Const. Postremo § 22. But in doubt concerning the use of reason, the age of seven years suffices. But generally favor is to be shown rather to the child than to the father. For the father is dealing with avoiding a light detriment, namely of paternal power for a moderate time; but the child is dealing with avoiding a most grave detriment, namely eternal damnation. Lugo Resp. Mor. l. 1, d. 4, 6, 5. 5. If the child has been placed outside the care of the parents, as if he had been exposed; for then they would be judged to have renounced their right. Likewise if the parents have been captured in war; for by the right of war captives belong to the victor. 6. If the father offers the child and afterward changes his mind; or if the parents abandon the child, although afterward they reclaim him; for the Church would already have acquired a right. - Benedict XIV, Const. Inter omnigenas, Feb. 2, 1744; Instr. Postremo; Collection of S. C. de P. F. 540 ff.

Yet if the offspring has already been illicitly baptized against the will of the parents, then Benedict XIV in the cited Instr. Postremo prohibits returning him to the parents, because of the certain danger of perversion of the offspring and profanation of the sacrament.

The Church has the right of baptizing infants, the children of heretics, even against the will of their parents, from whom also she can "tear them away, so that they may be educated as Catholics." L. 127. Yet the Church is not accustomed to use this right because of graver inconveniences. But where the Church cannot carry out a right of this kind, "the same seems to have to be said in that case concerning a heretic and any other unbeliever, if the same moral danger is present," lest they afterward be educated as Catholics. S. C. de P. F., Apr. 17, 1727; Holy Office, Jan. 23, 1763. - La Croix 297 ff.; L. 128-132; Lugo Resp. Mor. l. 1, d. 4; St. Thomas 2.2, q. 10, a. 12; 3 p., q. 68, a. 10; Quodl. 2, a. 7; A. S. S. v. 25, p. 247 ff.; E. M.

Can or must baptism ever be repeated? - It can and must be repeated conditionally whenever there is some not-to-be-despised doubt concerning its validity; otherwise it cannot be repeated without grave sin, because an attempt to minister a sacrament to an incapable subject is sacrilege. L. 134; A. S. v. 25, p. 258; Roman Ritual, de Bapt. adult.; E. M.

Are exposed infants to be baptized? - Resp. In the affirmative, if these have been exposed without testimony of baptism conferred, unless from elsewhere it is clear that they were duly baptized. But if they have been exposed with a note attesting that they were baptized, it is controverted. The more common and truer opinion teaches that all these are to be baptized conditionally, "whenever moral certitude is not had concerning baptism conferred, and duly conferred," after diligent inquiry has been made. L. 135; E. M.

Are infants baptized either by midwives or by laymen to be rebaptized? - Resp. In the negative, unless there is a probable suspicion of error in the baptism conferred. Thus the most common and true opinion, says St. Liguori 136, where he recalls a decision of the Sacred Congregation. E. M.

Must those baptized by heretics be rebaptized? - Resp. It is certain by faith from Trent that baptism conferred by heretics is valid when all the things required for the sacrament are used. But in the conversion of heretics, from whatever sect they have come, inquiry must be made concerning the validity of baptism received in heresy. And thus they are to be baptized absolutely, conditionally, or in no way, according as, inquiry having been made, it is certainly clear that baptism was not duly conferred, or the matter is probably doubtful, or nothing has been detected either for validity or for invalidity, or it is certainly clear that baptism was valid. Holy Office, Nov. 20, 1878. - Lugo Resp. Mor. l. 1, d. 2; E. M.

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. "1. Whether, on account of the danger that a daughter be handed over in marriage to a Muslim or heathen man, or to a simple polygamous Christian, baptism can be administered to girls, whether infants or adults, when otherwise they have the necessary dispositions for receiving it?

2. Whether, on account of the danger that slaves be sold to Muslim or heathen masters, with danger to the faith, baptism can be conferred on them in infancy and also in adult age, as long as their master does not swear the contrary?

R. As regards the first, a distinction must be made between infant girls and adult girls. The former, where nothing else stands in the way besides the danger of future marriages, can and ought most safely to be admitted to baptism; for it is not equitable that, on account of an uncertain event still very remote, they be repelled from the certain benefit of obtaining baptismal grace. But adult girls are either not yet nubile, or indeed already nubile but not yet promised in marriage, or already betrothed to infidel or polygamous men. In the first and in the second Case there is no reason why baptism should be denied or deferred, provided the aforesaid girls have the necessary dispositions, since the danger of entering invalid marriages with infidels, and of afterward remaining in them violently, is not certainly and proximately imminent, and can otherwise be removed in several ways. But in the third Case it is in no way expedient to baptize them before marriage, both because of the not slight difficulty of obtaining a legitimate dispensation, and because of the most grave danger that they may proceed to the marriage even if no place is given for dispensation, which certainly cannot be granted over impediments of natural law; therefore it will be better to defer baptism than to expose it to proximate profanation.

As regards the second doubt, it contains a greater difficulty concerning infants than concerning adults. For the foreseen danger of perversion prevents baptism from being conferred insofar as it can in no way be removed by opportune instructions. With this principle established, it follows that adult slaves of either sex who are duly disposed, and can be fortified beforehand with Christian instruction, are to be baptized, even if their master refuses to promise that he will never commit this act, namely, to sell them to infidels. Concerning slaves who are still infants, it is necessary to consider whether they are liable to the danger of passing into the power of infidels after they have obtained adolescence, or before they have passed beyond the age of infancy. In the former hypothesis, whenever nothing else stands in the way of their baptism besides the above-mentioned danger and some hope shines forth of their Christian education, they are licitly washed in the sacred laver; and this is likewise licitly administered to them in the latter hypothesis, if they are either offered by Christian parents, or are found near death." S. O. 25. June 1866. Collect. S. C. de P. F. n. 591.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In order to baptize an infant not yet born.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

End of the Treatise on Baptism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

³ On the Sacrament of Baptism, n. 19.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

¹ Mark, X, 14.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

⁷ Codex Iuris Can., can. 747, 748.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. When a pregnant mother has died, "the fetus, extracted by those to whom it pertains, if he certainly lives, is to be baptized absolutely; if doubtfully, under condition" (c. 746, §4).

The fetus is extracted by the operation which, from Caesar, to whom it was useful, is called Caesarean. This operation certainly is to be done, even if conception was recent. Wherefore, as quickly as possible, a surgeon or another who can do it is to be called, meanwhile preserving the womb of the dead mother warm and opening her mouth; "nor is the physician perhaps saying that every effort is made in vain because the fetus is already dead to be easily believed: for indeed they rarely know this altogether certainly" (Lehmkuhl, II, 104).

Yet the priest himself, lest he become liable to a grave civil penalty or render religion hateful, will neither perform that section nor directly command it to be done; but by grave admonition he will try to induce the husband of the deceased woman, or relatives, or a physician, or a man endowed with public authority, to take care for that section. For already the doubtful effect itself excuses the priest for whom most grave inconveniences would have to be undergone; and the damage itself to religion supplies a public reason for abstaining. This reason moved the Holy See so that, on February 15, 1780, it prescribed to Missionaries in China that they commit the matter to the burden and office of surgeons. The Holy Office again referred to that decree on December 13, 1899. Cf. Coll. Pr. Fid., nn. 541 and 2073.

With inconveniences of this kind excluded, anyone, if a physician is lacking, could or should complete the incision from charity toward the infant perhaps to be saved. And by the principle of double effect, the danger of accelerating the death of the apparently dead mother is excused.

While the mother is living, that baptism of the infant, who seems unable to be brought forth alive by the natural way, be procured more certainly, Caesarean section is licit even with grave danger of death for the mother.

Today, since that section has become much less fatal, since, with sleep procured, every horror also is removed, that section is not rarely to be earnestly advised, and indeed early, lest the mother become unequal to the strength needed. And unless she herself is brought into grave peril, objectively she seems to be obliged to admit that section. Yet admonition will have to be made prudently, lest the good faith of the endangered mother be disturbed. The obligation itself, insofar as it arises from baptism to be conferred, is diminished when there is probable hope of validly baptizing the infant in the womb itself.

— II. 1. On the Abortive Fetus. "Care must be taken that all abortive fetuses, at whatever time brought forth, if they certainly live, be baptized absolutely; if doubtfully, under condition" (c. 747). For we do not know at what moment the spiritual soul is infused; nor do few think that this soul is infused from the first instant. Canon 747 seems to have been written according to this latter opinion; nevertheless, it by no means proposes it doctrinally, but merely hands down a practical norm.

Contrary to what Augustine thinks in c. 747 (A Commentary), relying too much on ocular observation, not after some days, but, as microscopic inspection demonstrates, immediately after penetration of the spermatozoon into the ovum, from the two pronuclei of the spermatozoon and ovum a nucleus is composed and there is had a being living by its own life, that is, a man. By the usage of physicians it is called an embryo; after six weeks, a fetus.

A certain sign of death is almost nothing except putrefaction, and beginning putrefaction does not suffice. But it happens often enough that a pregnant woman, while she is in agony, casts forth the fetus. Therefore one must beware lest the fetus be suffocated in the bed.

The better and safer way of baptizing these fetuses is by immersion in tepid water, taking care that while you pronounce the form, you immerse the fetus and then draw it out from the water.

Baptism does not seem to be conferred in a closed ovum, because the exterior membrane belongs least of all to the fetus. With Lehmkuhl approving, II, n. 104 note, and Ferberes, II, n. 825, Capellmann, Medicina pastoralis, proposes this way of baptizing the smallest fetuses enclosed in the ovum: that, the ovum carefully opened, the amniotic fluid be allowed to flow off slowly; and that then with the thumb and finger of each hand, you grasp some fold of the covering and rupture it so that the matter of the ovum flows out.

Sometimes instead of a fetus a mole is brought forth, or a mass of flesh, shapeless and without life, which remains from the fertilized ovum when unequal nutrition of the afterbirth and fetus has effected that the latter is as it were absorbed by the former. "Moreover," says Eschbach (Disp. physiologica theologicae, p. 2, d. 2, art. 2), "it is expedient also to cut apart and inspect moles themselves, since experience testifies that more than once a tiny infant has been found in them."

But it must not be dissembled that fetuses can scarcely be recognized unless they have been conceived for some weeks. Nevertheless, a most opportune admonition is made concerning the obligation of baptizing fetuses, since too frequently rather large fetuses are cast forth who ought to have been baptized and buried in a sacred place.

— 2. On a Monster. Today it is sufficiently certain that a woman cannot conceive from a brute animal, nor properly from a demon, who has power only to introduce human semen. Wherefore whatever living thing, whatever is not plainly certain to be destitute of life, and is brought forth from a woman, is to be baptized at least under condition.

An acardiac monster, which lacks heart and brain, is to be baptized under the condition if you live. It is always brought forth with a well-developed fetus and after this fetus. But Antonelli, t. 2, n. 401, advises that it be given uterine baptism immediately after the developed fetus has been brought forth, because scarcely otherwise is it brought forth except dead.

Concerning the unity of the subject rather than concerning its truth one can doubt. Therefore, if in a monster otherwise of human form, the chests and heads are doubled, baptism is to be conferred absolutely on each head; but if only either heads or chests are doubled, baptism is to be conferred absolutely on one head, conditionally on the other head or chest (d'Annibale, III, 274, note 38). If there are only several arms or legs, there is no reason for baptizing twice. Cf. c. 748.

— III. On the Born Infant. 1. That outside danger of death an infant before use of reason be licitly baptized, it is necessary that, without injury to the parents, grave danger of perversion can probably be removed. For reverence for the sacrament must be cared for; nor are evils to be done so that goods may come. Cf. Billot, De baptismo, who argues first from this, that it is injurious to parents that someone without authority insert himself in the governance and care of those who are constituted under the power of another (De sacramentis, I, Thesis XXIII).

Wherefore: a) provided his Catholic education has been secured, the infant of infidels is licitly baptized "if the parents or guardians, or at least one of them, consent; if the parents, that is, father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, or guardians, are lacking, or have lost right over him, or can exercise it in no way" (c. 750, §2).

b) "Concerning the baptism of infants of two heretics or schismatics, or of two Catholics who have lapsed into apostasy or heresy or schism, generally the same norm is to be observed" (c. 751).

The norm is placed less absolutely, because here not so much the right of parents, who by baptism are subject to the Church, as the difficulty and danger or harm of the business itself, stand in the way of Catholic education.

When the parents themselves offer a son to be baptized, unless they are moved by a superstitious end alone, they already seem virtually to consent to Catholic education. Yet prudence can prevent children who must remain among pagans from being baptized. Therefore the prescriptions of Ordinaries are to be observed by missionaries, or the Ordinaries must be asked by missionaries concerning sufficient cautions to be demanded.

Far more easily will sufficient hope of Catholic education be present if the parent himself offering or consenting to baptism has been Christian. Indeed concerning a child born of a Catholic and an infidel, even after the death of the faithful party, the Holy Office responded on July 6-8, 1898, to 4 (Coll. Pr. Fid., n. 2007): "If a possible hope shines forth that children of this kind can in their own time be instructed in the true religion, then, with cautions given, that is, with Catholic education promised, let them be baptized."

Wherefore baptism is not denied even to the children of socialists or unbelievers who were baptized Catholic.

Missionaries must also beware lest by their manner of acting they seem to foster the superstition of the parents. Yet the father does not sin by superstition who wills that his son be truly baptized so that he may be freed from disease.

2. In danger of death, that is, "when he is in that peril of life such that he is prudently foreseen likely to die before he reaches the use of reason," even when parents are unwilling the infant of infidels is licitly baptized (c. 750, §1). For then the spiritual necessity of the infant must be preferred to the right of parents.

In regions which are rarely visited by missionaries, it can happen that thus, even with parents unwilling, an infant is licitly baptized if, for example, after his thinness and the conditions of the region have been inspected, he is foreseen as probably likely to die before use of reason, and no better occasion of baptism is foreseen as going to be present. Yet it is necessary that the danger be personal to the child: a plague devastating the region does not suffice for all the children of pagans to be baptized.

Yet greater hatreds to be avoided against the Catholic religion, and cruelties against Catholics to be feared, can stand in the way so that, even in danger of death, infants are not baptized when parents are unwilling (Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide, April 7, 1727).

— IV. On the Adult Not Dying. 1. An adult here is judged anyone who has attained the use of reason; for he who enjoys reason is his own master for the business of eternal salvation. Cf. c. 745, §2, 2°.

2. In an adult, the will of receiving baptism is necessary for value. But licit reception besides supposes in him: a) faith, whose defect can be supplied by no other disposition. Wherefore an act of faith and knowledge of the truths which, whether from certain or from probable opinion, are to be explicitly believed by necessity of means, must absolutely be procured. For here the safer opinion is to be followed. Regularly also baptism is to be prepared by competent instruction, which comprehends all precepts of divine law, although sometimes instruction concerning certain mysteries, for example concerning the Eucharist, can prudently be postponed until after baptism; b) it supposes besides penance. Therefore the one to be baptized is to be admonished that he be sorry for his sins (c. 752, §1), and helped so that he have at least true attrition.

Nor will attrition itself with the connected purpose be had without sincere conversion, that is, unless he asks baptism with a right end, embraces the positive obligations of the Christian religion, and is moved by such a will as does not expose the sacrament to danger of profanation by apostasy or enormous and scandalous crimes of this kind. Therefore regularly a certain probation in faith and morals will be demanded, which, where there have been special difficulties, for example in time of persecutions, of itself must be greater and longer.

For similar reasons it sometimes happens that reception itself into the Catholic Church is prudently deferred for a minor by birth whom, if converted, grave vexations await, besides some hatred of the Catholic Church.

— V. On the Adult Placed in Danger of Death. 1. The burden of complete instruction is lightened as much as necessity demands. Wherefore, "if he cannot be more diligently instructed in the chief mysteries of faith, it is enough, for conferring baptism, that he in some way show that he assents to the same, and seriously promise that he will observe the commands of the Christian religion" (c. 752, §2). Concerning certain obligations in which good faith covers defect, one will be able prudently to be silent, always guarding against scandal.

2. He who cannot formally ask baptism, "but either previously or in the present state has manifested in some probable way the intention of receiving it, is to be baptized under condition; if then he becomes well and doubt remains concerning the value of the conferred baptism, baptism is again to be conferred under condition" (c. 752, §3).

Therefore a conjecture in some way probable that he is not baptized and that he wishes to be baptized creates the obligation of baptizing such a dying person. But a conjecture of the will of baptism can easily be had concerning him who has heard of the Christian religion. Indeed "a soul contrary to Christianity, by which before he was trying to shake off the goads of grace... can be both a reason for thinking that the dying person placed in danger has changed his mind, and now desires faith and baptism" (Lehmkuhl, II, 78, ed. 9). Wherefore, in our regions, any dying person, destitute of the senses and not yet baptized, can at least be baptized under the condition, "if you are capable."

Moreover, in great cities there are now so many who are not given baptism, even if they are born of baptized persons, that certain baptism can no longer be gathered from conversation among the faithful alone. Therefore it will be better to baptize conditionally, before absolution itself, an unknown dying person who is destitute of the senses.

A few think that in every attrition or will of saving the soul, which itself is not without knowledge of God as punisher of evils and rewarder of goods, a sufficient will of baptism is already contained. Wherefore, with the supreme necessity of baptism attended to, there seems to be no dying person destitute of the senses, whether in a faithful region or in an infidel region, who, with scandal set aside, cannot be baptized under condition. Cf. Cappello, op. c., I, n. 159.

Of itself indeed baptism, if it can, must be conferred upon many at the same time. The law of charity has this. Yet because most grave authors, such as Suarez, De Sacramentis, p. 1, d. 24, s. 1, n. 5, and Lugo, De Sacramentis in genere, d. 9, n. 129, deny that baptism can be conferred on others, the obligation will be only of baptizing those who, from c. 752, §3, have manifested in some probable way the formal intention of receiving baptism.⁽¹⁾

⁽¹⁾ Observe that it will more certainly profit an infidel who is mentally competent to elicit a perfect act of love of God and contrition, unless he expressly admits baptism.

— You will ask which certainly or doubtfully insane or doubtfully adult persons are to be baptized?

1. The insane from infancy, constituted in whatever age, are assimilated to infants (c. 745, §2, 1°). Wherefore they are always validly baptized; and licitly also, if, after the use of reason has been obtained, there will be founded hope of Christian instruction; or insanity is prudently foreseen as perpetual, or necessity of baptism urges.

2. Those who have lucid intervals, while they are of sound mind, are to be baptized if they wish (c. 754, §2).

3. Those who after the use of reason have fallen into insanity which is judged perpetual are to be baptized absolutely or conditionally, if some will of baptism, certainly or doubtfully sufficient, can in some way be conjectured while they enjoyed reason. Because of what was said just now, n. 242, we also do not oppose the conditioned baptism of others. If the insanity is not foreseen as going to be perpetual, lucid intervals are to be awaited, unless danger of death is imminent (c. 754, §3).

4. "He who labors under lethargy or frenzy is to be baptized only when awake and willing; but if danger of death is impending," he is to be baptized if before he has shown some desire of receiving baptism (c. 754, §4). And as far as we are concerned it is lawful to wash the others in that peril conditionally.

5. The baptism of one doubtfully insane is of itself to be deferred until lucid intervals or better developed reason have removed the doubt. But if waiting has been impossible or useless, he will have to be washed under condition, or even absolutely if, according to his measure, he is judged to have instruction and will of baptism. But if use of reason preceded, and then he had no will of baptism, some probable conjecture of present will toward baptism seems to be required.

6. One doubtfully adult is to be treated as one doubtfully insane. Of itself, therefore, his baptism is to be deferred. Yet if he already wishes to be baptized, as opportunity will prudently be given, he is to be separated from pagan parents who would create danger of perversion. Yet graver inconveniences, especially of public order, are to be avoided.

Yet if his Catholic instruction is morally certain, we do not see why the baptism of one doubtfully adult who according to his measure desires to be baptized should have to be deferred. Suppose converted pagan parents wish to be baptized with their whole offspring. Neither to adult offspring who consent, nor to children before the use of reason, will baptism be denied; why should it be denied to those doubtfully adult who ask baptism in the way in which they can?

— VI. On the Doubtfully Baptized. 1. Baptism is to be conferred once; and he sins gravely, by the sin of sacrilege, who confers or receives baptism again. Nevertheless the irregularity by which sacrilegious repetition of baptism, in the recipient and in the public rebaptizer, was formerly punished has been removed by the Code. Cf. Lehmkuhl, II, 1283.

2. But the extreme necessity of baptism permits that baptism be repeated under the condition, "if you are not baptized," if some doubt, yet reasonable, is had concerning the prior baptism.

Often, when the prior conferral, perhaps invalid, is certain, conditioned repetition is to be performed secretly or with witnesses removed, for avoiding scandals or offenses.

Wherefore "exposed and found infants, unless, the matter having been diligently investigated, their baptism is certain, are to be baptized under condition" (c. 749). But a note in which baptism is affirmed by no means furnishes sufficient security.

It is not lawful promiscuously to rebaptize under condition infants baptized by heretics or those converted from heresy, but, according to the account of times and places, an examination concerning the value of baptism is to be instituted; and this rather by weighing individual cases than by using presumptions (Holy Office, November 20, 1878). Nevertheless, if an examination cannot be made, baptism is to be repeated under condition; for because infidelity, or even among non-Catholics of good faith, negligence grows more day by day, baptism conferred by a non-Catholic is, practically, at least regularly to be repeated "unless there is brought forward a witness worthy of all faith who can testify point by point concerning baptism rightly performed." Thus almost Lehmkuhl, II, 27 note, alleging besides the response of the Holy Office, February 4, 1885, to the Visitor of the Copts.

Much less are they to be rebaptized promiscuously who, in necessity, were baptized by a physician, midwife, or pious layman. Yet because the probity or the very skill of a midwife is not always certain, nor rarely is baptism then conferred with the mind disturbed, for example by cares to be given to the endangered mother, there will easily be place for repeating baptism conditionally unless, after interrogation has been made concerning the way in which baptism was conferred, reasonable doubt is removed. But the interrogation is to be made in such a way that the manner in which the baptism was done is described. Wherefore even in certain missions it has been established that those baptized by catechists should regularly be baptized again under condition, unless two witnesses could testify to legitimate conferral. The Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide itself, September 8, 1869, extended to all vicariates of the Indies a decree of this kind of the Synod of Pondicherry (Collectio Lacensis, VI, 670, appendix). Nor can we disapprove that something similar be decreed concerning baptisms conferred by a midwife.

— By canon 753, §1, the Code warns that it is fitting that healthy adults to be baptized and he who is about to baptize them be fasting. This prescription of the Ritual seems to be referred to the more ancient obligation, which long remained, of conferring the sacraments before every eating or drinking.

Almost up to the seventeenth century fasting was imposed on those receiving and those ministering baptism. Cf. Martene, De antiquis Ecclesiae usibus, t. 1, p. 10.

Besides, the same canon, §2, demands that, unless grave and urgent causes stand in the way, an adult baptized should immediately assist at the sacrifice of the Mass and receive holy communion. Thus, by the rite itself, it is shown how the sacrament of baptism has an order toward receiving the Eucharist. Cf. St. Thomas, 3 p., q. 65, art. 3, c.

We understand this in such a way that of itself it is indeed fitting that the ceremony of baptism of adults be completed by the sacrifice of the Mass and holy communion; nevertheless urgent excuses are not required unless each is deferred for a long time. For the word immediately in law permits an interval of two or three days. Besides, the fasting itself necessary for communion is not properly prescribed. Therefore the usage will not be disapproved of baptizing adults in the evening who on the following day assist at Mass and are refreshed by the sacred banquet.

— I. The capable and of itself licit subject of baptism is every and only wayfaring man, not yet baptized and, if he has been an adult, consenting.

1. Danger lest the fetus be brought forth dead permits that baptism be attempted in the womb, to be repeated after birth under condition. When a pregnant mother has died, the extracted fetus is to be baptized absolutely or under condition, if he certainly or doubtfully lives. That an infant be baptized, Caesarean section is licit even with grave danger of death; and if the necessity is met sufficiently certainly in this way alone, it is objectively prescribed. Yet admonition is to be made prudently.

2. All abortive fetuses, which are not certain to be dead, are to be baptized at least under condition. In a monster, one can doubt concerning the unity rather than concerning the truth of the subject. Wherefore whatever is brought forth from a woman not certainly dead must be baptized at least under condition.

II. 1. That outside danger of death an infant before use of reason be licitly baptized, it is necessary that, without injury to the parents, grave danger of perversion can probably be removed. Wherefore the infants of infidels are not to be baptized when parents are unwilling; and generally the same norm is to be observed concerning the infants of heretics, schismatics, or apostates.

When he is in that peril of life such that he is prudently foreseen likely to die before use of reason, even with parents unwilling an infant is licitly baptized. And he is to be baptized unless a prevailing common detriment stands in the way.

2. Licit baptism of an adult demands faith and penance. Wherefore the baptism of one not dying is regularly to be prepared by competent instruction and fitting probation in faith and morals. In danger of death, it is enough that the dying person in some way show that he assents to the truths of faith, and seriously promise that he will observe the commands. And concerning certain obligations one will then be able prudently to be silent.

He is to be baptized under condition who cannot formally ask baptism but has in some probable way, before or now, manifested the intention of baptism. Nor does there seem to be any dying person destitute of the senses who, with scandal set aside, cannot be baptized under condition.

3. The insane from infancy are assimilated to infants. And cf. what was said above in the treatise on the Sacraments in general.

One doubtfully adult is to be treated as one doubtfully insane.

III. The extreme necessity of baptism permits that under condition, "if you are not baptized," baptism be repeated, if some doubt, yet reasonable, is had concerning the prior baptism.

Of itself indeed inquiry concerning those baptized in heresy is to be made; but if this cannot be done, baptism is to be repeated under condition.

124. Principle. The subject capable of baptism is every and only man who is a wayfarer and has not yet been baptized.¹⁴⁷

It is said, first: every man who is a wayfarer. Therefore, no exception is given; and consequently, if anyone were miraculously born without original sin, he would still need baptism in order to receive the baptismal character and to be incorporated into the Church.¹⁴⁸ Hence theologians commonly teach that even the Blessed Virgin Mary was baptized.¹⁴⁹ That little children are capable of baptism even before the use of reason has been defined as of faith several times, for example, in the Council of Trent:¹⁵⁰ "If anyone says that little children, because they have no act of believing, are not to be numbered among the faithful after receiving baptism, and therefore are to be rebaptized when they arrive at the years of discretion; or that it is better that their baptism be omitted than that, not believing by their own act, they be baptized in the faith of the Church alone, let him be anathema." The reason is that, just as in the Old Law infants were circumcised to destroy original sin, so a fortiori in the New Law infants are to be baptized to obtain the same effect. Moreover, without baptism eternal salvation is not given to one who dies, as was said above. Now, a great danger of death threatens little children especially. Therefore, they are to be baptized as soon as possible. When a man is no longer a wayfarer but is dead, he cannot be baptized, because all the sacraments were instituted for the living alone.

It is said, second: one who has not yet been baptized, because baptism cannot be repeated.

¹⁴⁷ Code of Canon Law, c. 745.

¹⁴⁸ Cf. St. Thomas, S. theol. 3, q. 68, a. 1 ad 3.

¹⁴⁹ Benedict XIV, De canoniz. sanct., l. 4, P. 2, c. 21, n. 14.

¹⁵⁰ Sess. 7, can. 13 on baptism (Denz., n. 869).

125. Dispositions of the subject. In infants no disposition is required in order that they may be validly and licitly baptized. The same applies to adults who are perpetually insane, since they are equated with infants. But if insane persons enjoyed the use of reason before they fell into insanity, they cannot be validly baptized unless, before contracting insanity, they manifested in some manner the will to receive baptism. But if a doubt exists concerning such a manifestation, they can be baptized under condition, especially if they are in danger of death.¹⁵¹ When, after baptism thus conditionally conferred, an insane person unexpectedly recovers the use of reason, an investigation concerning his intention is to be made; and after that investigation has been made, if any doubt remains, baptism is to be repeated conditionally.

In adults, for the valid reception of baptism, at least a habitual intention is required, as is evident from what was said above, n. 87, concerning the sacraments in general, and will be said again below, n. 135.

After these things have been said concerning the subject who can be validly baptized, certain special precepts enacted by the Church are to be presented: 1. concerning the baptism of infants both of Catholics and of non-Catholics; 2. concerning the baptism of unborn or abortive fetuses; 3. concerning the baptism of adults.

¹⁵¹ Code of Canon Law, c. 754, § 3.

S. Th. III, q. 68, a. 1.

142. The subject of Baptism is every and only man as wayfarer, not yet baptized, whether infant or adult (can. 745, § 1). - It is said:

1. every man, because Baptism is necessary for all men by necessity of means for salvation, or the ultimate end of eternal life (n. 133); whence every man is to be baptized, even one who has already been justified ex opere operantis by Baptism of the Spirit, or who had been miraculously formed and had not contracted original sin;

2. only man as wayfarer, because the sacraments befit men as wayfarers, but not angels or separated souls (n. 91);

3. not yet baptized, because Baptism can be repeated neither licitly nor validly, since it imprints an indelible character;

4. whether an infant, who does not yet have the use of reason, or an adult, who has attained sufficient use of reason. Moreover in adults, for validity there is required an intention at least habitual and implicit, and for liceity, besides this, several other dispositions; - but in children no disposition is required, and similarly in the perpetually insane who have never had the use of reason, because in this they are equated with children.

Hence can. 745, § 2: "1. Under the name of little children or infants come... those who have not yet attained the use of reason, and to them are reckoned the insane from infancy, in whatever age they are constituted;

2. But those are considered adults who enjoy the use of reason, and this is enough for each one by his own motion of soul to seek Baptism and to be admitted to it."

In particular one must speak of adults, children, children of non-Catholics, unborn children, abortive fetuses, monsters, and the doubtfully baptized who are to be rebaptized.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

S. Th. III, q. 68, a. 10; II-II, q. 10, a. 12.

149. Principle I. Infants of Jews and unbelievers, outside danger of death, are not to be baptized when their parents are ignorant of it or unwilling (can. 750, § 1). - For although they are baptized validly, as must be held against Durandus, nevertheless they are not baptized licitly, both because in this way the natural right of parents is violated, and because an injury is done to the faith and to the sacrament on account of the certain danger of defection, and because it is contrary to the custom and law of the Church: thus St. Thomas and the Thomists against the school of Scotus, which held this to be licit, unless in a case in which greater inconveniences would follow. This doctrine of St. Thomas the Church approved, namely Benedict XIV in the Constitution Postremo mense, February 28, 1747, and the Constitution Probe te meminisse, December 15, 1751, and the Instruction of S.C.P.F., August 17, 1777.

It is proved from St. Thomas: "Children, sons of unbelievers, either have the use of reason or they do not have it. But if they have it, already as to those things which are of divine and natural law, they begin to be of their own power, and therefore by their own will, against the will of their parents, they can receive Baptism, just as they can also contract marriage. And therefore such persons can licitly be admonished and induced to receive Baptism. - But if they do not yet have the use of free choice:

1. According to natural law they are under the care of their parents, so long as they cannot provide for themselves... And therefore it would be contrary to natural justice if such children were baptized against the will of their parents; just as also if someone having the use of reason were baptized unwillingly.

2. It would also be dangerous to baptize the children of unbelievers in such a way, because they would easily return to unbelief on account of natural affection toward their parents.

3. And therefore the custom of the Church does not have this, that the children of unbelievers be baptized against the will of their parents" (a. 10).

It is said: outside danger of death; for in danger the necessity of the infant's salvation prevails, which cancels the right of the parents, and there is not so great a danger of perversion.

150. Exceptionally these infants can be baptized in three cases:

1. When they are placed in such danger of death that they are prudently foreseen to die before attaining the use of reason (Holy Office, July 18, 1892); the danger is to be understood as proper to the infant, not common to all even when a plague is raging (S.C.P.F., August 17, 1777).

2. When, being placed outside the power of their parents (i.e. of father, mother, grandfather, grandmother) or guardians, they can be educated in the Catholic religion: for then neither is the right of the parents violated, nor is there danger of perversion, as if they have been exposed or abandoned by their parents, or if parents and guardians are entirely lacking, or have lost their right over them, or can in no way exercise it (can. 750, § 2, 2).

3. If both parents consent to Baptism, or one or the other, or the guardians who in place of the parents exercise paternal authority, or at least one of them, and at the same time there is hope of Christian education (Holy Office, February 13, 1867; can. 750, § 2, 1), or even hope of the conversion of the parents: for there is equal natural right in each parent, which in the case is committed to the Church, and, exercised in favor of the child, prevails over the perverse will of the others.

Nevertheless they ought not to be baptized, unless in proximate danger of death; - indeed not even while this danger stands, if the sacrament cannot be conferred without exciting the hatred and persecutions of unbelievers against the Christian religion: for the common good of the Church is to be preferred to the private good of one person (S.C.P.F., August 17, 1777).

1465. The SUBJECT capable of Baptism is every and only living man descending from Adam, not yet baptized. This is established from the words of Christ the Lord, who says indiscriminately of all: "Unless anyone shall have been born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (John 3:5).

Hence, validly and licitly baptized are: 1. infants, as was expressly defined by Trent (sess. 7, can. 13, on Baptism); 2. the perpetually insane, who have never used reason; because they are judged of the same condition as infants.¹⁶ Recall what was said, n. 1435.

These things having been premised in general, we must now treat specifically: 1. of infants to be baptized in the womb of the mother; 2. of abortive fetuses and monsters; 3. of the children of unbelievers or heretics; 4. of adults; 5. of the doubtfully baptized.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1471. Children are indeed VALIDLY baptized against the will of parents; for it is not written, says St. Augustine, unless anyone shall have been reborn from the will of parents, but unless anyone shall have been reborn of water, etc. But here it is asked whether always LICITLY? Concerning this, hold these things:

Principles. I. It is certain that with the Church there is the right of baptizing infant children of HERETICS or SCHISMATICS, and of preventing them from being imbued with the errors of their parents, nor can any doubt be raised concerning this right of the Church (cf. n. 132 sq.). But indeed, for the sake of prudence, "that a Catholic minister licitly furnish Baptism, it is necessary that he conceive a probable hope that such a baptized child can, in his own time, be instructed in the true faith. But if in no way he can have such a moral hope, he certainly ought rather to abstain from Baptism, supposing the little child not to be in extreme necessity, in which anyone else can be baptized." S. C. de PROP. FID., April 17, 1777.⁴

Note. The same Sacred Congregation, on November 29, 1672, declared: "It is licit for a pastor to baptize a child, with one Catholic parent consenting, even if he knows certainly that the other will afterwards take care that the infant be baptized by a heretical minister; but the Catholic spouse is held to admonish the heretical spouse that the son has already been legitimately baptized."⁵

1472. II. It is licit to baptize children of UNBELIEVERS, against the will of parents, in the following cases: 1. If they have the use of reason, or, in doubt, have completed seven years, and ask for Baptism, yet precaution having been taken against the danger of perversion. 2. If they are in danger of death and can be baptized secretly, without violence inflicted on parents, and without scandal of unbelievers.⁶ 3. If they have been placed outside the care of parents, and fear is absent lest they return to them, as if they were exposed or abandoned. 4. If they are perpetually insane. 5. If they have been captured by right of war; likewise, if their parents are slaves of Christians. 6. If one of the parents consents to Baptism, the other resisting. The same must be said if, the father being dead, the paternal grandfather consents to Baptism, although the mother resists.⁷

1473. III. Outside the aforesaid cases, it is NOT LICIT to baptize the children of unbelievers AGAINST the will of parents. The reason is that, if they are left in the power of the parents, the Sacrament would certainly be exposed to the danger of profanation on account of the undoubted danger of perversion and apostasy; if they are withdrawn from the parents, the natural right of parents would be injured, by which children, as long as they do not enjoy the use of reason, are under the power and care of parents, just as their other things are. Thus the more common opinion of the doctors against the Scotists, confirmed by the use of the Church and by the Constitution of Benedict XIV Postremo mense, February 28, 1747.⁸

IV. Offspring baptized, whether licitly or illicitly, against the will of parents, ARE TO BE WITHDRAWN from their power, that they may be INSTRUCTED in the faith received and persevere in it. The reason is that man through Baptism is subjected to the jurisdiction of the Church, and consequently is by right liberated from paternal care in those things which look to the government of the soul, insofar as it can be contrary to the acquired right of the Church; for the right of natural paternity ought to yield to the right of the spiritual paternity of the Church.⁹ Yet scarcely today can this doctrine be brought into practice, since civil laws obstruct it.

In ADULTS certain dispositions are required, both for the valid and for the licit reception of Baptism. Concerning this, hold these things:

1474. Principles. I. For the VALID reception of Baptism in adults there is REQUIRED and SUFFICES an intention at least habitual, that is, had and not retracted, of receiving Baptism (cf. n. 1434).

Hence it is inferred: 1. Baptism received from grave fear is valid. For since it is sufficiently voluntary, the Sacrament is received, although the thing or grace of the Sacrament is not received. 2. Likewise, Baptism conferred on one sleeping or insane is valid, if before, when in possession of himself, he asked for it, or in whom, as the Roman Ritual says, the desire of Baptism appeared.¹⁰

1475. II. For the LICIT and FRUITFUL reception of Baptism there are required in adults, besides intention, the DISPOSITIONS which the Council of Trent teaches are necessary for the justification of the impious (cf. n. 1644).

Hence you will deduce: 1. If some adult has already been justified beforehand through charity or contrition, nothing further is required in him except the will of receiving the Sacrament, by which character is impressed, the punishment of sin is remitted, and grace is increased (cf. n. 1450).

2. If he has not been justified, yet has only original sin, there is required and suffices in him explicit faith of the mysteries of faith which are to be believed by necessity of means, and implicit faith of the others which have been revealed by God; then hope of justification and eternal life, with the beginning of love, by which namely he begins to love God as the fountain of all justice, and proposes to himself to observe the divine commandments.

3. If he also has personal sins, there is moreover required supernatural sorrow for sins, according to that (Acts 2:38): "Do penance, and let each one of you be baptized"; and the reason is that actual sins cannot be destroyed without the retraction of the sinner. But the doctors more truly hand down that attrition suffices; for since Baptism has been instituted for destroying even actual sins committed before its reception, if it should pre-require contrition, which covers a multitude of sins, it would pre-require the effect for the producing of which it was instituted; therefore. Thus very commonly with St. Thomas, who says: "For this, that man prepare himself for grace to be perceived in Baptism, faith is pre-required, but not charity; because preceding attrition suffices, even if it is not contrition."¹¹

The ROMAN RITUAL admonishes: "1. If some adult is to be baptized, he ought first, according to the apostolic rule, to be diligently instructed in the Christian faith and holy morals, and for some days to be exercised in works of piety, and his will and purpose are to be explored more often, and he is to be baptized only knowing and willing, and well instructed."¹² In antiquity, diverse times had been prescribed for proving and instructing CATECHUMENS; now the whole matter is left to the judgment of the Bishop.¹³

2. For reverence of the Sacrament, it is fitting that both the one baptizing and those to be baptized who are healthy be fasting. Thus also the RITUAL.

1476. It is asked: Whether and when Baptism must be repeated UNDER CONDITION?

Resp. 1. There has always been in the Church the practice of baptizing, at least under a tacit condition, those concerning whom it was doubted whether by the laver of regeneration they had been expiated from original fault, as Benedict XIV proves at length against Natalis Alexander.¹⁴ But Alexander III established thus: "Concerning those of whom it is doubtful whether they have been baptized, let them be baptized with these words premised: If thou hast been baptized, I do not baptize thee; but, if thou hast not yet been baptized, I baptize thee, etc."¹⁵

2. "Baptism must be repeated under condition, not everywhere and without cause; but only then when a prudent and probable doubt underlies whether someone has been baptized, nor, diligent inquiry having first been made, could the truth of the matter become known," as the same Benedict XIV has.¹⁶ And this is to be observed under grave obligation, both in doubt of law, namely when it is established that baptism was conferred with doubtful matter, or form, or intention, or with one concerning whose value there is controversy; and in doubt of fact, when it is prudently doubted, whether positively or negatively, whether Baptism has been given or not: because in each doubt, the salvation of man is equally endangered. Hence the rule which the Fifth Council of Carthage hands down: "Whenever there are not found most certain witnesses who testify without doubt that they have been baptized, they are to be rebaptized without scruple."¹⁷

1477. From what has been said you will deduce:¹⁸ I. The following MUST be baptized under condition: 1. Exposed infants who are found without a certificate concerning Baptism. And the same must be thought with Benedict XIV, even if they carried on the neck testimony of Baptism, when the paper does not produce certainty, that is, when it is not discovered that the author of the paper is worthy of faith. Thus from the declaration of the S. C. C., December 18, 1723.¹⁹ 2. All those for whom no sign can be had of received Baptism, nor of the marriage of the parents. 3. Many heretics. But these are to be rebaptized, not because they have been baptized by heretics, but because heretics baptizing are not accustomed to fulfill the conditions which the Church prescribes. And St. Alphonsus asserts this by name concerning Lutherans and Calvinists, who, since they judge Baptism not to be absolutely necessary, care little for matter and form. "Some of them," he says, "use distilled waters; others are accustomed in baptizing to observe this custom, that one pronounces the form and another applies the matter; some pour water upon the garments only, and others more commonly fail in intention."²⁰

Note. 1. The Greek Schismatics, Eutychians, Nestorians, and other Oriental heretics are accustomed to confer Baptism accurately and VALIDLY; likewise the French Schismatics (petite Eglise), Old Catholics, and among Anglicans Ritualists. 2. Less accurately, and therefore DOUBTFULLY, Methodists and Presbyterians administer Baptism, who are accustomed to baptize by sprinkling; also Episcopalians, who especially today judge Baptism to be a bare rite without true efficacy; then finally Congregationalists, Unitarians, and Universalists, who consider Baptism as something free. 3. Baptists baptize adults only, and indeed doubtfully, because they pronounce the whole form before the immersion begins. Socinians and Quakers confer no baptism at all.²¹

Moreover, let it be noticed that Sects are changeable, and that today, in various places, they approach Rationalism more and more.

1478. II. The following are not to be baptized again, not even under condition: 1. Infants whose Baptism at least one witness worthy of faith affirms, as Benedict XIV himself teaches.²² And this, even if the witness is a woman, provided she is above exception, and there are not other witnesses deposing the contrary. 2. An adult who was born from truly Christian parents and was educated among the faithful; because, unless most evident reasons to the contrary are given, for his Baptism stands a violent presumption, which produces certitude. Yet if he is to be ordained, positive testimony of Baptism is required. 3. One baptized by a midwife, or by another skilled person, unless, the matter having been diligently examined, a probable suspicion of error is present.²³

1479. Let the following Responses of the HOLY OFFICE be noted: I. To the proposed doubt whether Baptism should be conferred under condition on heretics who are converted to the Catholic faith, from whatever place they come, and to whatever sect they belong, the Eminent Fathers responded Negatively; but in the conversion of heretics, from whatever place or from whatever sect they have come, inquiry must be made concerning the validity of Baptism received in heresy. Therefore, an examination having been made in individual cases, if it has been found either that none was conferred or that it was conferred invalidly, they will have to be baptized absolutely. But if, according to the account of times or places, the investigation having been completed, nothing is detected either for validity or for invalidity, or a probable doubt concerning the validity of Baptism still remains, then they are to be baptized secretly under condition. Finally, if it has been established that it was valid, they are to be received only to abjuration or profession of faith²⁴ (Decree, Wednesday, November 20, 1878).

II. It was asked: "1. Whether, in a case of doubt concerning the value of Baptism, Japanese persons who have thus received Baptism are still to be considered as Christians or unbelievers? 2. Whether, if doubt concerning the value of Baptism remains, and it has not seemed opportune to solve the doubt concerning those who have thus been doubtfully baptized, in matters which look to Matrimony, judgment must be made as if they had truly and validly been baptized, or not? To 1. Generally speaking, those concerning whom it is doubted whether they have been validly baptized are to be held as Christians. To 2. Baptism is to be judged valid in order to the validity of Matrimony" (Decree, September 9, 1868).¹

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Query 4° Are exposed infants to be baptized?

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

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

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

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

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

Nevertheless note the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore the Baptism of all these is rightly presumed doubtful.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"A) Abjuration, or Profession of Faith.

"B) Conditionated Baptism.

"C) Sacramental Confession with conditionated Absolution.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I. The incisions which injure the organs not of the fetus but of the mother are:

a) Caesarean section (keizersnede, so called because Julius, called Caesar, i.e., cut out, was thus born), or hysterotomy (baarmoedersnede): it consists in an incision of the abdomen and of the maternal uterus in order to extract a living fetus who, on account of the narrowness of the mother or other causes, such as death, irreducible retroversion of the uterus (onherstelbare omkanteling van de baarmoeder), placenta previa,¹ cannot be brought forth by the natural way;²

¹ The placenta is called previa when it adheres over the internal mouth of the uterus or near this mouth. This occurs when the ovule descends as far as the mouth of the uterus, and there the decidua serotina and then the placenta are developed.

² You will find the manner of performing the Caesarean operation among certain theologians, such as Dens, Theol. Mechlin., Aertnijs, and in Antonelli, c. c., t. I, n. 446.

b) symphysiotomy³ (schaamboogdoorsnijding), by which the cartilage, or symphysis, which joins the two bones of the pubis is cut. This operation is done if the impossibility of birth arises from narrowness of the pelvis (bassin, bekken), provided, however, that the narrowness is not excessive; for thus the breadth of the pelvis is increased so that the fetus can pass through it more easily;

³ It is the operation which Dr. Sigault first employed, in the year 1768; it is more dangerous than Caesarean section: in the latter, indeed, the section is deeper, but in the former harder; yet, in a particular case, it can be judged safer.

c) pubiotomy (schaambeendoorsnijding), by which, for the same end, one or both bones of the pubis are cut;

d) combined operations⁴ (vereenigde behandelingen): that is, symphysiotomy together with artificial premature delivery; thus the Caesarean operation is avoided, and the mother is healed after a few days.

⁴ They are of Dr. Iacolucci, in the year 1867.

II. The aforesaid operations are not illicit, unless they are done in such circumstances in which, on account of the weakness of the mother, the inexperience of the operator, or a certain danger of infection, they appear destructive of the mother and equivalent to killing. For Saint Thomas says (III, q. 68, a. 11, ad 3): "Evils are not to be done that goods may come about (Rom. IV, 8), and therefore a man ought not to kill the mother (or the infant) in order to baptize the child"; whence Caesarean section is illicit if it brings with it, as it were necessarily, the death of the mother or of the infant.

Nevertheless, in fact it is almost always licit, if the fetus is viable,⁵ and birth cannot be obtained in any other way. Formerly it often brought great danger and was an extraordinary means; today, because of the progress of surgical art, if it is done by an expert, it often is not very dangerous, nor is it a means so extraordinary, but for the most part it includes a rather remote danger of death for the mother, especially if precautions by antiseptic means are employed; but by an inexperienced person, e.g., by a priest, while the mother is living, it cannot be done. The same is to be said a fortiori of a less dangerous incision, which they call the vaginal Caesarean operation,⁶ namely, by which the opening of the female genital canal (moederscheede) is widened, which is the natural way by which the infant is born.

⁵ It is said: "if the fetus is viable"; for, as De Smet notes (De Sacramentis, n. 316): "If the infant is in danger before mature birth, seven months, because the pregnant mother is sick even unto death, and therefore it is to be feared lest the offspring die with her, regularly the death of the mother is to be awaited, and when she has died, the fetus is to be cut out from the maternal womb... And indeed: a) there can scarcely be a question of conferring Baptism in the uterus, both because before mature birth the uterus is penetrated with greater difficulty, and because for rightly administering the sacrament the membranes enclosing the fetus would have to be perforated; and this perforation would inevitably bring with it the effusion of the amniotic fluid and the expulsion of the immature fetus; but the expulsion of a fetus not yet viable would constitute abortion, and seems gravely illicit. (See nevertheless below, II, q. 3, n. IV.) b) Regularly there will be no place for Caesarean section, inasmuch as, the weakness of the mother being supposed, it would be deadly in the case."

⁶ It is the operation of Dr. Hubert, who was professor at the University of Louvain. This is done if birth is impeded not from narrowness of the pelvis, but from closure or perverse disposition of the fleshy parts, which cannot otherwise be overcome.

III. The mother is also bound (of herself under grave obligation) to undergo an operation, even Caesarean section, if 1) she cannot give birth naturally; 2) in the judgment of an expert the infant cannot otherwise be baptized; and 3) the safety of the mother and of the infant can prudently be hoped for by means of the section; for the mother cannot be killed, nor the fetus himself, so that this latter may be baptized before he dies.

Hence there is required a) that the fetus be viable, ordinarily of seven months; otherwise he would be killed; b) that the mother be robust; c) and that there be an expert surgeon. For then, by the law of charity, the mother must, under grave obligation, prefer the eternal salvation of her neighbor, namely of the infant, to temporal good and life.

Hence generally the obligation of the mother does not exist, because a) more often the fetus survives the deceased mother, or there is serious hope that he will survive; b) generally, by means of an instrument, he can be baptized in the uterus; c) for preserving her own life, and a fortiori for preserving the life of the fetus, the mother probably is not bound to have recourse to a means which perhaps is, or at least is still reputed to be, extraordinary.

For practice, even in the case in which she is bound to undergo the incision, prudence generally forbids warning a mother who is in good faith about the grave obligation, because of the danger lest perhaps, by refusing consent, she die in the state of sin. Nevertheless, the priest, and likewise the physician and relatives, ought to exhort her to the section. The physician is obliged to perform it, if it is asked of him, and he is bound to exhort the mother to undergo it, because from justice he must employ safer means for preserving the life of the mother and of the offspring; whence the priest should induce the physician to furnish this office.

IV. When a pregnant woman has died, immediately after death the Caesarean operation is to be done, as the Roman Ritual prescribes, tit. II, c. I, n. 17: "If a pregnant mother has died, let the fetus be extracted cautiously as soon as possible, and if he is living, let him be baptized" (Can. 746 § 4; S. Off., 15 Feb. 1780). But that the life of the infant may more easily be preserved, the uterus of the deceased mother is to be covered with cloths, so that it may retain heat; however, to open the mother's mouth, lest the infant perish by lack of respiration, is of no utility, because he does not breathe through the mother.

To this section, of themselves all are bound by the grave precept of charity, because all are bound to provide for the eternal salvation of the infant even with the greatest temporal inconveniences; and, if the fetus is viable, there is added another reason, that of preserving his temporal life.⁷ They are bound, however, provided three conditions are present:

⁷ "The obligation," says De Smet (De Sacramentis, n. 313), "begins from the death of the mother, known with moral certainty, and perseveres until the morally certain death of the offspring... But how long life can be preserved for infants in the uterus of a dead mother cannot be determined: this depends much on the character of the disease from which the pregnant mother died; but there is no doubt that the fetus can survive the mother for an hour, indeed for several." Namely, in the placenta there remains a sufficiently great amount of blood that from it he can assimilate the necessities of life; and this is the greater because little suffices for sustaining that tender life.

1. the mother is morally certainly dead; whence the section is not to be done except after the testimony of an expert concerning death;

2. it is probable that the fetus is living; hence no one is bound to it at the beginnings of pregnancy, in the second or third month, because then the fetus is almost always dead, or at least it is very uncertain whether he will emerge living; nevertheless it is to be done in the fourth month, especially if the woman has perished by sudden or very rapid death, unless there are grave reasons for judging that the fetus died before the mother or with her;

3. those acting are suitable and have sufficient skill so that they can accomplish the section without danger to the fetus; nevertheless no one is bound beforehand to learn the art or manner, because, in order to satisfy a precept, no one is bound to employ remote means, namely when the precept does not yet urge. Hence:

a) the operation first falls upon the physician, who is to be induced to perform it even if he says that the offspring is already dead, because in this matter they are accustomed to proceed more lightly and to speak thus lest they perform the section; and yet there is no doubt that the fetus can survive the mother for an hour, indeed for several;

b) but if he is unwilling, let another, e.g., a midwife, who is suitable for this, approach; the priest should warn such a person concerning this, unless very grave inconveniences are feared;

c) if others are lacking, the priest is not certainly bound to this, both because of frequent inexperience, and because of indecency, and especially because of the danger of scandal and of greater evil from the hostile talk, hatred, and calumnies of the enemies of religion; for the scandal of many is to be avoided more than the salvation of one infant is to be procured (S. Off., 15 Feb. 1780; 13 Dec. 1899). Nevertheless, these reasons do not hold for all circumstances, e.g., if there is a discreet Catholic family, or in missions, the Chinese nevertheless excepted; whence, according to several authors, of himself he would be bound: although this is perhaps more probable, nevertheless it is not certain.⁸

⁸ Many teach that the priest is bound, such as Cangiamila, Debreyne, Th. Mechl., Vering, Konings, and Behmkuhl; nevertheless others deny it, such as Bouvier, Gousset, Marres, and Berardi.

V. Case. It can happen that a woman or girl illegitimately pregnant, with no one knowing it, is in imminent danger of death. Now, after the fourth month of pregnancy, there is a well-founded hope of extracting a living fetus from the uterus of the dead mother. Whence the woman has a grave obligation to disclose the matter directly to some person, so that after her death the Caesarean operation can be done and the infant baptized. She can furnish this:

a) by writing letters in which she declares that she wills that after her death the uterus be opened and the offspring baptized, which signed and sealed letters she should hand to a trustworthy person, to be opened only after death. For thus, as far as can be done, provision is made for her reputation and for the salvation of the offspring;

b) if she cannot write, or does not wish to, let her manifest the matter orally to a wholly discreet person, who will reveal the fact only after her death;

c) other things being equal, for a duty of this kind the physician is to be chosen before others, who perhaps already knows the matter under professional secrecy, who can more fittingly provide for the reputation of the mother and of the family, and who, when necessity urges, can at once proceed to the section and baptism; parents are less suitable, who perhaps, from excessive fear of infamy, will abstain from revelation;

d) the confessor himself should only with difficulty and in the last place take upon himself the burden of revealing, especially if he fears lest from this the sacrament be rendered odious to the relatives of the girl.

But the confessor should induce the penitent to this by persuading and commending, not impose it as obligatory, if he finds that the penitent will certainly refuse it; for then he would uselessly disturb good faith, which in fact would not profit the infant and would harm the salvation of the mother. If, however, she doubts and asks concerning the obligation, the confessor must acknowledge the obligation.

VI. Observations. 1) To avoid the above-mentioned incisions by preventing conception, utero-ovarian amputation (the operation of Dr. Porro), or amputation of both ovaries, is often done; it is had without great hemorrhage or suppuration, and for that reason is said to be preferable to Caesarean section. But grave mutilation⁹ of the body is licit only (and indeed with the consent of the mother supposed) for preserving the life of the whole body, which therefore cannot otherwise be preserved, because the part itself is infected by disease and, from this very fact, even apart from pregnancy, brings danger to life; as with an arm and a foot. It is illicit if it is done in order never to conceive; indeed also, because evils are not to be done that goods may come about, in order to avoid the danger of a new pregnancy or of a new Caesarean section, the more so because a new pregnancy is doubtful and the danger is not yet imminent, and the Caesarean operation is not most grave, especially in a woman who has already undergone it, and this operation is as grave as Caesarean section.

⁹ Mutilation is grave not only by reason of danger or of the dimension of the member, but also by reason of function, e.g., if it deprives one of a power or function of great importance.

2. Oophorectomy, or ovosection (doorsnijding der eileiders), i.e., resection or ligation of the tubes of the oviduct, or of the canal leading from the ovary to the womb and carrying the maternal ovule to it, is gravely illicit for the same reason, as being a grave mutilation, except in the sole case in which the part labors under grave disease and constitutes a danger to life.

3. The same must be said of vasectomy¹⁰ in the man, or resection of the vessels or canals carrying the seed to the seminal vesicles (doorsnijding der zaadleiders), by which the way to ejaculation is broken off for the seed. Namely, it is gravely illicit, as being a grave mutilation, unless by reason of health it would be necessary for the good of the body, e.g., if a part of the deferent canal were infected with gangrene; whence it is not licit for obtaining sterility or impotence, even if perhaps the integrity of the canal and the power of inseminating could be restored, as some affirm, although in practice it is difficult; likewise, it is not licit for avoiding the multiplication of offspring or a dangerous birth, indeed not even for healing a great vicious inclination of lust: for the member, by its own nature, is immediately subordinated only to the good of the body, not to the good of the soul.

¹⁰ Concerning vasectomy, Nouvelle Revue Theologique 1910, p. 420; Revue Ecclesiastique de Liege, VI, 1910, p. 203; and Collationes Brugenses, XVII, 1912, p. 533, can usefully be read.

But public authority, since it does not have direct dominion over the life, liberty, and members of subjects, cannot take these away from them, and therefore cannot impose vasectomy upon innocent citizens, even the sick; to punish criminals in this way is incongruous, since it is not a suitable punishment, because the operation is little painful; finally, to use this means lest they harm others or lest, by entering marriage, they transmit disease by heredity, is not licit, because an evil means is not to be used for a good end, and also because other means are not lacking by which provision can be made for these things, e.g., prohibition by law under penal sanction, confinement, or abstinence from marriage.

It can also be noted that marriage, in the case of perpetual vasectomy, contracted, is invalid because of the impediment of impotence; but if the potency can be restored, it would also have to be restored when the consort demands it, yet then the end intended by authority would no longer be obtained. Moreover, bodily good is not the greatest common good of society; to this also pertains preserving human dignity, to which every species of animal selection is repugnant.

4. Likewise it is illicit to use the so-called X-rays or Roentgen rays, which, directed more intensely and with a greater dose upon the ovaries or testicles, can produce sterility, yet not always efficaciously and with fruit. For this is to be judged a grave mutilation, since it deprives one of a function of greater importance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I say. § 1. The subject capable of baptism is every and only wayfaring man, not yet baptized (Can. 745).

Every one indeed, because on account of the universality of original sin, all need to be regenerated; but only, because the sacraments have been instituted for wayfaring men alone, and to them alone the entrance into the Church lies open. Finally I said not yet baptized, because by force of the character which is imprinted in Baptism, this sacrament can be repeated neither licitly nor validly.

§ 2. When there is question of baptism:

1st. By the name of little ones or infants there come, according to the norm of can. 88, § 3, those who have not yet attained the use of reason, and to these are reckoned those without reason from infancy, established in whatever age;

2nd. But adults are judged to be those who enjoy the use of reason; and this is enough that each one, by his own motion of soul, may ask for baptism and be admitted to it (Can. 745).

You Will Resolve. 1st. Infants are validly baptized.

§ 1. Those without reason and the frenzied are not to be baptized, unless they were such from birth or before having attained the use of reason; and then they are to be baptized as infants.

§ 2. But if they have lucid intervals, while they are in possession of their mind, they are to be baptized, if they wish.

§ 3. They are also to be baptized when danger of death is imminent, if, before they became insane, they showed the desire of receiving baptism (Can. 754).

Indeed, when it is not plainly established that they did not ask for Baptism, more safely they can be baptized under condition, because according to many, as was said above, it is enough that someone had the will of receiving all things necessary for salvation.

2nd. If it is doubtful whether an infant lives, he is to be baptized under condition. Care must be taken that all aborted fetuses, at whatever time brought forth, if they certainly live, are baptized absolutely; if doubtfully, under condition (Can. 747); especially since today the opinion commonly received by experts is in force, that the fetus is informed by a soul from the beginning of conception. Wherefore physicians, midwives, and mothers are to be admonished, with prudence however, concerning an obligation of this kind. But this is not to be understood in such a way that Baptism can be given even then when not even the first outlines of human life appear. But concerning the manner of baptizing such a fetus Capellmann hands down these things: "For those who are very little or not sufficiently skilled in these matters, the most useful and most certain counsel will be that they confer baptism by immersion, and indeed in such a way that they break open the membranes in or under the water, and, with these having been broken, immediately pronounce the form of baptism: If you live, I, etc. Therefore take hold of some fold of the membrane with the thumb and index finger of each hand and break it open in such a way that the matter of the ovum flows out, that is, so that the baptismal water washes the whole matter of the ovum. But if it is done thus, the access of the approaching air to the embryo, which some so greatly fear, will also be avoided." Medicina Pastoralis, p. 112, note. Lehmkuhl adds to these things, n. 74: "But so that you may act more safely, while saying the form both immerse the fetus into the water and draw it out from it." - Cf. O'Kane, n. 211. - Ballerini, note (a) p. 160. - Lehmkuhl, n. 74.

Indeed, all recently born infants, although commonly believed dead, are to be baptized without delay under the condition: if you live, unless they are already corrupted and putrefied. For it frequently happens that such infants, seized by asphyxia and apparently dead, in reality live within. This is clear from the fact that these very often, with suitable remedies having been employed, have manifested undoubted signs of life several hours after birth have elapsed. Hence those standing by are bound to provide for their eternal salvation through baptism; physicians are bound to employ every care that newborns may be brought back to life; finally parish priests are bound to instruct the faithful concerning the grave obligation of baptizing them, unless signs of advanced putrefaction appear. - Cf. Gury-Ferreres, n. 249 bis, Scholion. - Eschbach, Disput. Physiol. Theologicae, p. 318. - Antonelli, Medicina Pastoralis, vol. 2, nn. 598 and seq. - But especially Ferreres, La muerte real y la muerte apparente, nn. 23-33. - Amer. Eccl. Rev., vol. 33, p. 273 and seq.

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

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

5th. Monsters and prodigies are always to be baptized at least under condition; but in doubt whether they are one or several human beings, one is to be baptized absolutely, the others under condition¹ (Can. 748).

6th. § 4. If a pregnant mother has died, the fetus extracted by those to whom it pertains, if it certainly lives, is to be baptized absolutely; if doubtfully, under condition (Can. 746).

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1141, n. 102.

Question 1. Whether and when can the children of unbelievers not yet having the use of reason licitly be baptized, against the will of the parents?

Resp. Generally speaking, it is not licit to baptize them, both because the natural right of parents would be violated, and because they would be exposed to the danger of perversion, and consequently injury would be done to the sacrament, and finally because it is repugnant to the practice of the Church. And this is the doctrine of St. Thomas, who, 3, q. 68, art. 10, says: "According to natural right, they (children of this kind) are under the care of the parents as long as they cannot provide for themselves . . . and therefore it would be against natural justice if such children, against the will of the parents, were baptized: just as also if someone having the use of reason were baptized unwillingly. It would also be dangerous to baptize children of unbelievers in such a way, because they would easily return to unbelief on account of natural affection for their parents. And therefore the Church does not have this custom, that the children of unbelievers, against the will of the parents, be baptized."

Yet I said 1st. generally speaking, because it is licit in the following cases: 1st. if they are in danger of death, not any danger whatever, but certain or proximate; 2nd. if, justly or unjustly placed outside the care of the parents, there is no fear that they will return to them; 3rd. if it is already known that they will be perpetually without the use of reason; 4th. if one of the parents consents, or if, the father being dead, the paternal grandfather consents, the mother being opposed. - I said 2nd. it is not licit, because concerning validity there never was or can be any question. - I said 3rd. not yet having the use of reason, for those who certainly have it can, indeed if they ask and are sufficiently instructed, must be baptized, with necessary prudence nevertheless being employed. But if there is doubt concerning the use of reason, then according to St. Alphonsus, Benedict XIV, and others, Baptism must be deferred before the seventh year, until it is established concerning the use of reason. The Code establishes the following:

§ 1. The infant of unbelievers, even against the will of the parents, is licitly baptized when he is in such danger of life that it is prudently foreseen that he will die before he attains the use of reason.

§ 2. Outside danger of death, provided that provision has been made for his Catholic education, he is licitly baptized:

1st. If the parents or tutors, or at least one of them, consent;

2nd. If the parents, that is, father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, or tutors are lacking, or have lost their right over him, or can in no way exercise it (Can. 750).

Question 2. Must the same be said concerning the children of heretics among us?

Resp. Affirmatively. That the Church has the right of compelling heretics to furnish the necessary means of salvation to their children, and therefore that they not only procure valid baptism for them but also permit a suitable education to be given, is a certain matter and admitted by all Catholics. But the present question, which entirely regards fact, is not solved from the admission of that right but only from this: namely, whether that right can be actuated. For where the Church cannot execute a right of this kind, "the same seems to have to be said in that case concerning a heretic and any other unbeliever, if there is the same moral danger." S. C. de P. F., 17 April 1777. Thus the Ecclesiastical law defines the matter:

Concerning the baptism of infants of two heretics or schismatics, or of two Catholics who have fallen into apostasy or heresy or schism, generally the norms established in the preceding canon are to be observed (Can. 751). - Cf. St. Alphonsus, loc. cit. - Kenrick, n. 28. - The cited Instruction in Cretoni. - Amer. Eccl. Rev., vol. 1, p. 185 and seq.

Question 3. What must be done when non-Catholic parents offer their own infants to a priest that they may be baptized by him?

Resp. A distinction must be made; for either they ask for the priestly ministry because they wish the offspring to be educated as Catholic; or they do this only for the sake of opportunity or another temporal advantage, without any hope of future Catholic education. If the first, it is licit to confer Baptism, with safeguards nevertheless being employed for averting non-Catholic instruction; if the other, we think it is not licit on account of the danger of perversion. - I recently said without any hope of future Catholic education; for hope must be so much the principle of the solution of all similar cases that as often as it is prudently judged to be present, so often Baptism can be given. Wherefore the Congregation of the Holy Office thus responded for the Diocese of Bardstown (today Louisville) on 13 Sept. 1827: "The Sacred Congregation maturely weighed all the circumstances in which it was set forth that those regions were placed, and the reasons brought forward, and, all things having been weighed, judges that this rule must not be departed from in practice; that infants of heretics offered by their parents are not to be baptized unless a probable hope of their Catholic education shines forth." This same thing was established by the First Provincial Council of Baltimore and solemnly confirmed by the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore. - But if you ask when in fact a probable hope of Catholic education will be present? - the answer is that this depends upon particular circumstances according to the judgment of prudent persons. But it is certainly present when, for example, the parents promise, either both or at least one, that they will embrace the true faith; when they are well disposed concerning it, although they do not wish to embrace it; when they permit a Catholic godmother or godfather to be chosen and to promise specially, etc. - Cf. Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, n. 229. - Kenrick, nn. 29 and 30. - London Tablet, year 1882, Oct. 21, p. 659; Nov. 4, p. 738; and Nov. 25, p. 859. - The Pastor, vol. 4, p. 342.

Question 4. Are exposed infants to be baptized?

Resp. Affirmatively; exposed and found infants, unless, the matter having been diligently investigated, their baptism is established, are to be baptized under condition (Can. 749). - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 135.

Question 5. Must those baptized by heretics be rebaptized?

Resp. It is certain from faith, from Trent, that Baptism conferred by heretics is valid when all things required for the sacrament are employed. But theologians commonly and deservedly think that all children baptized by Protestant ministers are almost always to be rebaptized under condition; because doubt can arise concerning the matter and form applied by such ministers. Wherefore among us, when someone is converted to the true faith, Baptism is almost always repeated, not because the earlier Baptism conferred by heretics is considered invalid in itself, but because, practically speaking, it is almost always rightly judged that something was lacking to it. "As the carelessness and rashness of sects increase day by day," says Kenrick, "the custom was introduced in England, especially from the year 1773, of baptizing any converts whatever under condition, unless it were certainly established concerning Baptism previously validly received. The same has obtained among us." - But since this custom or practice rests upon a presumption of error, and presumption must always yield to truth, it follows that priests are often bound to institute an examination and, once the truth is had, cannot repeat Baptism without sacrilege. - I said often and not always, because although, according to the response of the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition given on 20 Nov. 1878, that examination must be instituted "in individual cases," nevertheless it would be useless to pursue it when it has become known that the new convert belonged to some sect, for example, the Quakers, among whom no Baptism is conferred; unless, however, someone should wish to say that in cases of this kind the examination consists in a simple interrogation about the sect to which the new convert belonged. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 137. - Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, n. 240. - Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, n. 122. - Kenrick, n. 43. - Revue des sciences ecclés., 40, p. 145.

Question 6. How in practice is the examination concerning the validity of received Baptism to be instituted?

Resp. The new convert is to be asked:

1st. Concerning the sect to which he belongs. Now we know:

Oriental heretics and Old Catholics are accustomed to administer Baptism accurately, and therefore a presumption favors them.

Socinians and Quakers confer no Baptism at all today.

Baptists baptize only at adult age, but their Baptism is considered doubtful by some on account of the separation which they place between matter and form, because the latter is pronounced by them before the immersion begins.

Congregationalists, Unitarians, and Universalists regard Baptism as something free, and therefore the presumption is that they do not administer it accurately.

Methodists and Presbyterians are accustomed to give Baptism by sprinkling, and therefore it is reasonably doubted whether the water always touched the skin and flowed.

Episcopalians, if not all, at least most, and especially today, judge that Baptism has no true efficacy, but is a bare rite, and consequently a founded fear is had concerning their skill and care in its administration.

2nd. The new convert must also be asked concerning the region in which he received Baptism from a heretical minister, and concerning the time when he received it. For it is clear that the manner of acting of ministers of the same sect is not everywhere the same, nor is Baptism today conferred by them in the same manner and with the same diligence as fifty years ago. - Cf. Revue des sciences ecclés., vol. 40, pp. 147 and seq. - Konings, n. 1264.

Question 7. When must baptism be conferred?

Resp. Infants are to be baptized as soon as possible; and parish priests and preachers are frequently to remind the faithful concerning this grave obligation of theirs (Can. 770). In the old edition the Roman Ritual, Tit. II, cap. I, n. 15, prescribed thus: "It must be urged that baptism be administered as quickly as possible." Holy Office, 11 Jan. 1899. Concerning the inveterate abuse of deferring the Baptism of children "for weeks, for months, indeed even for years," Leo XIII speaks thus on 22 July 1899: "Surely nothing is more unjust than this evil custom, nothing more contrary to ecclesiastical sanctions: since it . . . brings the eternal salvation of so many souls into manifest danger by inexcusable rashness, . . . certainly deprives them within that time of the ineffable charisms of sanctifying grace; . . . we cannot but from our soul disapprove and execrate so detestable a custom, at once impious toward God and toward men . . ." Therefore the custom of deferring Baptism for children even "for weeks" is detestable, impious, than which nothing is more unjust; this certainly cannot but be a grave sin. What the mind of the Church is in this matter is also plain from the question to be answered by all Bishops in the visitation of the Sacred Thresholds: "Whether parents are generally solicitous that those recently born be washed with baptism within a week; whether there are some who defer too long or prohibit baptism from being ministered?" De Rationibus Dioecesanis et Visitatione S. Liminum: S. C. Consist., 31 Dec. 1909. Concerning this matter one must insist in stirring up parents to bring infants as soon as possible that they may be baptized. Certainly to defer it beyond three weeks without cause seems to be grave sin.

Question 8. What must be said concerning the instruction of adults who wish to return to the Church?

Resp. In ordinary cases, and excepting the danger of death, they must be sufficiently instructed concerning the principal mysteries of faith, the Apostles' Creed, the Lord's Prayer, the precepts of the Decalogue and of the Church, the effect of Baptism, and the dispositions necessary for receiving it rightly and holily, the acts of the theological virtues and their motives; they must also be forearmed against the singular dangers to which faith is exposed in their place; they must be taught concerning various grave obligations arising from their past life and their fulfillment; if there have been or are any abuses opposed to the Catholic thing, they must abhor them, or at least exhibit signs of amendment, if any is required. Finally, they are to be exercised and tested for a long time in faith and Christian morals. This time will vary according to the prudence of the parish priest or priest. Nevertheless the time can be restricted when there is question of the elderly or the sick, or of those who have given extraordinary signs of their conversion. Cf. Holy Office, 18 Oct. 1883.

§ 1. An adult is not to be baptized unless knowing and willing and thoroughly instructed; moreover he is to be admonished to grieve for his sins.

§ 2. But in danger of death, if he cannot be instructed more diligently in the principal mysteries of faith, it is enough, for conferring baptism, that he show in some way that he assents to the same and seriously promises that he will observe the commandments of the Christian religion.

§ 3. But if he cannot even ask for baptism, yet either previously or in his present state has manifested in some probable way the intention of receiving it, he is to be baptized under condition; if then he recovers, and doubt concerning the validity of the baptism conferred remains, baptism is again to be conferred under condition (Can. 752).

Or if this alone is known to you, that he has wished to make himself saved, let him be baptized under condition, as not a few theologians, and not of the lowest bench, say; or if among us you come upon a dying person deprived of his senses, concerning whose will here and now you can discover nothing, certainly very many priests would absolve him conditionally; but if the circumstances of your presence persuade you that you are present not without the care of God, I certainly would not dare condemn you, but would rejoice, if, scandal having been removed, you were to baptize such a one under condition; nor would I rebuke you if you did not do it, but would be silent. Cf. by all means the response of the Holy Office, 18 Dec. 1850. Who would not do the same in the same circumstances?

Note: The practice is to be reproved and is altogether illicit of administering baptism under condition to a non-Catholic party who declares that he wishes to remain in heresy, when a doubt concerning the validity of the same sacrament arises. For then this can be done licitly only when the heterodox party shows himself prepared to abjure errors and to return to the bosom of the Catholic Church. Thus Card. Caterini, Secretary of the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition, 13 April 1878.

Cases which will illustrate the practice are brought forward here with Roman responses.

1st. "We likewise baptized," thus the report from the Vicar Apostolic of the Sandwich Islands, "old persons in danger of death and often deprived of their senses, when we believed it was not without reason that divine providence had led us to them; and when otherwise we had certainty that they had renounced idolatry and had not been enemies of truth, although by ignorance they had not embraced it in a well explicit manner." The Holy Office, 11 Dec. 1850, responded: "The old persons concerning whom there is question can licitly be baptized, once it is first established that they are constituted in the proximate and morally certain article of death, and that they have antecedently renounced idolatry."

2nd. The Holy Office responds: that the missionary cannot baptize one not believing explicitly in the Lord Jesus Christ, but is bound to instruct him concerning all those things which are necessary by necessity of means according to the capacity of the one to be baptized:

that the missionary is also bound to intimate all the precepts of positive divine law to adult barbarians baptized or to be baptized:

as regards an adult outside danger of death, speaking in itself, the missionary is bound to explain to him the mystery of the Eucharist, unless such a motive to the contrary urges that delay until after baptism be judged expedient by a prudent missionary. As regards a dying person, he is likewise bound, unless either time is not available, or so great a disturbance of mind is foreseen in him that it could distract him from the reception of Baptism. 10 May 1703.

3rd. "An unbeliever who has given his name to a heretical sect of Protestants has obtained some notion of the mysteries of the Most Holy Trinity, Incarnation, and Redemption; but as regards the Catholic faith he seems to be in good faith, either because he has heard nothing about it or because he does not yet sufficiently discern truth from error, since Christ is announced on both sides. But having come to the article of death, he is not baptized by heretics, since these care very little about this; or if perhaps they baptize, they seem to employ an invalid form; for thus in their books they teach to baptize in the vernacular tongue: 'I baptize you in the name of our Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.'"

It is asked: (a) Can such a one be baptized by a Catholic member of the faithful, or even must he be, when, dying, he cannot be instructed concerning Catholic dogma?

(b) Even if he can be instructed in some way, insofar as he is placed in good faith, can he be baptized without being instructed concerning Catholic dogma, if so great a disturbance of mind is feared that he may be distracted from the reception of baptism, and does good faith excuse?

R. to (a) and (b). Affirmatively, provided that it is certainly established concerning the will of receiving baptism, and provided that the catechumen himself adheres, if time is available, to the Apostles' Creed which is recited before him before the conferral of baptism; and let the instruction of feria IV, 1 Aug. 1860, to the Right Reverend Vicar Apostolic of Tche-Kiang, "Explorata res," be given, with this added, that if the catechumen has been baptized invalidly, he is to be baptized absolutely; but if he has been baptized doubtfully, he is to be baptized under condition. Holy Office, 27 Jan. 1892.

4th. Concerning a dying adult: that it is not licit for a missionary to "confer Baptism if he is morally certain that the sick barbarian has not sufficiently understood, according to the measure of his own capacity, the mysteries of the Christian religion, or does not sufficiently believe them, and from the sole motive of not contradicting promises that he will keep the commandments: but if the missionary prudently believes that the sick barbarian, when he says, I believe and I will do, then in reality sufficiently believes and seriously promises that he will observe, he must be baptized. But if the missionary doubts concerning the aforesaid things, and time is not available for instructing him better, and danger of death is imminent, he must likewise be baptized under condition," the Holy Office responds, 10 May 1703.

5th. Can a savage adult be baptized who in the article of death, either because of brevity of time or because of a defect of ideas and ignorance, not only cannot be instructed concerning the things necessary by necessity of means, but cannot form an act of contrition or attrition for his sins? The Holy Office responded, 18 Sept. 1850: "If he previously gave signs of wishing to be baptized, or in his present state by a nod or in another way has shown the same disposition, that he can be baptized under condition, insofar, however, as the missionary, after all the circumstances of things have been inspected, will have prudently judged thus." Collection, ed. 2, n. 1050; the same response was repeated by the Holy Office, 30 Mar. 1898.

6th. To a dying adult Mohammedan who exists in good faith in his errors, if he still has full advertence, it is not licit to confer Baptism either conditionally or absolutely, by only exhorting him to sorrow and confidence, speaking not at all concerning our mysteries; nor is it licit, whatever advertence he has, by saying nothing to him, since on the one hand it is supposed that contrition is not lacking to him, but on the other it is not prudent to speak with him concerning our mysteries. Finally if he has lost advertence, see the responses of 18 Sept. 1850; 31 Mar. 1898.

7th. Before Baptism is conferred upon an adult, the missionary is bound to explain to him, even though dying, provided that he is not altogether incapable, the mysteries of faith which are necessary by necessity of means, as are especially the mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation; nor does it suffice if the dying person were to promise that, when he recovers from the illness, he will take care to be instructed so that he may reduce into practice whatever shall have been prescribed to him. Collection, 254. Holy Office, 25 Jan. 1703.

8th. A parish priest or missionary called to a sick or dying person, especially one not baptized or a Protestant, whom he certainly knows to belong to the Freemasons and to be in good faith in the aforesaid secret society, cannot "generically speaking according to the decrees already issued, without any admonition as regards leaving the condemned society, baptize or absolve him: but since according to those things which Albitius has, children and the dying do not abjure, if there is question of those near death and materially or in good faith enrolled in sects condemned by the Holy See, and unless it is foreseen that a special admonition will be profitable, it suffices" that in general they be exhorted to subject themselves sincerely to the authority of the Church and to the commands of the Holy See; then they can be baptized and absolved. But scandal is to be repaired in that better manner in which it can be done, even after death. The Holy Office, 8 July 1874.

9th. § 4. He who suffers from lethargy or phrenesis is to be baptized only when awake and willing; but if danger of death is imminent, the prescription of § 3 is to be observed (Can. 754).¹

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1113, n. 61.

I. QUESTION I. Are faith, sorrow for sins, and inchoate charity required in adults for rightly receiving Baptism? ANSWER. That faith is necessary St. Mark declares, chapter 16, saying: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. The necessity of penitence St. Peter manifests, Acts 2, where he says: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you. Of love at least initial, of which there shall be discourse below, St. John says, Epistle 1, chapter 3: He that loveth not abideth in death.

II. QUESTION II. What are the effects of Baptism? ANSWER. The first and chief effect of Baptism is to blot out both original sin and all other sins, and to sanctify the soul, as is had in Acts 2: Be baptized every one of you unto the remission of sins. And St. Paul to the Romans 8: There is now therefore no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus. Basely therefore do the Protestants err who blurt out that through Baptism sins are only not imputed, but not otherwise taken away and utterly blotted out: which error Trent condemned, session 5, chapter 5.

III. Nor is it to the purpose that they object that concupiscence remains in the baptized, which by the Apostle's testimony is sin; since concupiscence is called sin by the Apostle not because it is properly and formally sin itself, but because it proceeds from sin and inclines and allures to sin, as Trent defined, session 5, chapter 5, out of the tradition of the Fathers.

IV. Another effect of Baptism is the remission of the eternal and temporal penalty, as the Council of Florence defined in the Decree for the Armenians, and Trent in the place cited confirmed. The third effect of Baptism is the impression of a character, as is had from the perpetual tradition of the Church, and Trent defined, session 7, canon 9.

V. Baptism rightly administered is never to be repeated. If anyone has been baptized in heresy, it must be examined whether he was baptized according to the true form of the Church or the evangelical one; and if he was baptized according to this form, he ought not to be rebaptized. If we detect that the evangelical form was not observed, he is to be baptized anew. Those nevertheless who were baptized by heretics ought to be attentively examined.

VI. Those who have been baptized by a midwife ought not to be rebaptized, when the parish priest detects the midwife to be prudent, awake, and constant in an examination upon the exact observance of the form. Are exposed infants having a certificate of the Baptism conferred hung upon the neck to be rebaptized? A precise resolution cannot be given. When even the least suspicion arises concerning the Baptism validly conferred, they are to be rebaptized under a condition, as the Roman Ritual, published by order of Paul V, lays down.

VII. QUESTION III. Does Baptism received with fiction, the fiction receding, blot out sin? ANSWER. Fiction is twofold. One by which a man simulates that he receives Baptism, but within neither intends, nor believes, nor wills to receive Baptism. Of this there is no question. The other fiction is that by which a man really wills to receive Baptism, yet does not detest his sins, nor believes, nor hopes; yet nevertheless receives Baptism, because he really wills to receive it, but does not receive its effect on account of the indicated impediments. It is asked whether, this fiction receding, he obtains the remission of sins. The negative opinion many defend; but the affirmative St. Augustine and St. Thomas and theologians commonly defend. Because a cause productive by its own nature of an effect produces it when the impediment is removed.

VIII. QUESTION IV. What are the ceremonies of Baptism? ANSWER. Many, of which I shall touch upon a few. Certain ones go before, as the presentation of those to be baptized before the door of the church, which they cannot enter, since through the original fault they are children of wrath. Then the priest inquires what they seek from the Church of God; and they reply, Baptism. There succeeds the exorcism for the expelling of the demon. Salt is put into the mouth of the one to be baptized, that, the putrefaction of vices being driven away, the baptized may taste the savour of good works. With the sign of the cross are marked the forehead and the eyes, the ears, the shoulders, and the breast; the nostrils and the ears are anointed with saliva, and Ephphetha, that is, Be opened, is pronounced.

IX. The ceremonies which accompany and follow baptism are the following. The priest leads the one to be baptized to the sacred font, and thrice interrogates him: Dost thou renounce Satan, and all his pomps, and all his works? The one to be baptized answers, either by himself if he be an adult, or through the godparent if he be an infant, to each interrogation, I renounce. Then the priest asks: Dost thou believe in God the Father almighty? He answers, I believe; and again concerning the other articles of the symbol the priest asks, and the one to be baptized answers, I believe. At last he is asked: Wilt thou be baptized? and, he consenting either by himself or through the godparents, the priest baptizes him. The ceremonies which follow baptism are the following. The priest anoints the crown of the baptized man's head, clothes him with a white garment if he be an adult; if an infant, he places a little linen cloth upon the head, saying: Receive a white garment, which thou mayest carry unstained before the tribunal of our Lord Jesus Christ, that thou mayest have eternal life. A burning candle the priest delivers into his hand as a symbol of faith and charity. In Baptism a proper name is imposed upon each.

X. There is required someone who may receive the baptized from the sacred font, as St. Thomas declares, III, q. 67, art. 7, and assigns congruous reasons. Nor is anyone indiscriminately to be chosen, but a Catholic, and as far as may be of the best morals and instructed, and who can supply the parts of a pedagogue, of a master teaching and instructing. Parish priests administering baptism without godparents sin mortally, urgent necessity being removed. Since these rites are of the necessity not of the sacrament but of the precept. One man or one woman suffices, or at the most one man and one woman can be admitted, as Trent lays down, session 24, chapter 2. Monks and mendicant regulars are excluded from this office, as the more probable opinion teaches. Godparents contract a spiritual kinship with the baptized, and with his father and mother, as Trent declares, session 24, chapter 2.

Caius, a missionary in southern Africa, had instructed Titius in the Catholic faith, which Titius indeed believed to be true; nevertheless, he was unwilling to embrace it before death. “I wish to be baptized before death,” he used to say, “so that I may die a Christian, although I cannot live as a Christian.” After a few years, Caius, hearing that Titius was dying, hastened to him and, finding him deprived of his senses, baptized him. Afterwards, however, Titius recovered and was unwilling to admit that he was a Christian. Caius therefore asks whether he ought to baptize Titius again if he should at some time be placed in danger of death. Hence it is asked:

1. What conditions are required on the part of the subject for the validity of Baptism?

2. What conditions are required on the part of the subject for the lawfulness of Baptism?

3. Can or ought Baptism to be repeated, at least conditionally?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. What conditions are required for the validity of baptism on the part of the recipient?

The only condition on the part of the recipient who has the use of reason that is requisite for the validity ot Baptism is a wish to be baptized. An habitual wish is sufficient. In such as have never had the use of reason, not even this wish is required for the validity of the sacrament.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, p. 62.

2. What conditions are required on the part of the recipient for the lawful reception of Baptism?

Faith, hope, and at least attrition for sin are necessary dispositions for the lawful reception of Baptism.²

2 Ibid., p. 62.

3. May Baptism be repeated or ought it to be repeated at least under condition?

Baptism may and should be repeated, under condition whenever there is prudent doubt whether a person has been validly baptized. Otherwise it should not be repeated.³

3 Ibid., p. 63.

4. The case. Titius had expressed a wish to be baptized before death. He must be presumed to have intended to procure Baptism when he was in danger of death, as he could not wait till he knew whether death in reality ensued or not. Caius, then, acted according to his express will when he baptized him on finding him out of his senses and in danger of death. The Baptism was therefore valid though afterward Titius would not acknowledge his obligations, and it should not be repeated if he again falls into the danger of death.

Rebecca, born of Jewish parents, had been entrusted by them to nuns to be educated in a convent. Now sixteen years of age and about to leave the convent the next year when her education was finished, she asked Titius, a regular priest, to receive her into the Church. Titius found her well instructed in the Catholic faith and fully persuaded of its truth, but her parents utterly unwilling that she should publicly embrace the Catholic religion. Titius, however, does not know whether in these circumstances he ought to grant her prayers, at least so that she may become a Catholic secretly. Hence it is asked:

1. Who is the subject of Baptism?

2. Can children under parental authority be baptized against their parents’ will?

3. If a child of infidels or non-Catholics is baptized, what must be guarded concerning that child’s education?

4. What is to be said of the case?

The first question was answered above, p. 103 and the second, p. 104.

3. If a child of infidel or non-Catholic parents be baptized, what should be done about its education?

Means should be taken to secure the child’s education in the Catholic faith. With a view to this the First Council of Westminster (d. XVI, n. 6), decreed: “ A priest can baptize infants born of non-Catholic parents born, provided that consent is had that they are to be educated in the true religion and that they have a Catholic godfather or godmother.” The Holy Office has more than once replied to questions on the point that unless those who are offered for Baptism are in danger of death it is not lawful to baptize them if they are to be left under the care and education of their infidel parents. Thus on March 15, 1770, the following answer was given: “ It is not lawful to confer Baptism on children offered by both infidel parents, whenever the same infants, after receiving Baptism, are to be left under the power and education of those same infidel parents.”¹

1 Bucceroni, Enchiridion Morale, p. 109.

4. The case. Rebecca should not be received unless she can publicly profess and practise the Catholic faith. She should be told that there would be no difficulty in receiving her if she could get her father’s consent. Even if she can not get her father’s consent to her reception into the Church directly, if a place in a Catholic family or amid Catholic surroundings could be provided for her, and her father agreed to her accepting the place, she might then be received at once. If she is under the necessity of returning to her father’s house and living under his authority, and if she can not get his consent to her becoming a Catholic, her reception should be put off" till she becomes her own mistress. The danger of perversion, of scandal, of complaints against convents, in general render immediate reception unadvisable in these circumstances. She should be taught how she may preserve her good dispositions by prayer, leading a good life, reading good books, etc., until such time as she can be received into the Church.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Was the physician allowed to hypnotize the patient?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

^* By J. Rieder, D.D.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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