I've read with interest the threads regarding infant baptism (or lack thereof).

My question is more theological in nature...

My parish does not allow infant baptism during Lent. My daughter is due 2/13/05 - 2 days before Lent starts. The earliest I could have her baptised would be the Sunday after Easter. Why would the Church imply that she would not go to Heaven if something happened before she is baptised if I have to wait until after Lent?

Obviously I'm praying that this is a very hypothetical question...I guess my theological curiosity is peaked...

thank you!

-- Lucia Leighton (lsarlo@mindspring.com), December 07, 2004

Answers

bump

-- (bump@bumpbump.com), December 07, 2004.

The Church does not imply that she would not go to heaven. While the eternal fate of unbaptized infants has not been specifically revealed to the Church, and therefore the Church cannot make a definitive statement on the subject, the Church recognizes, as you do, that a just and loving God would not condemn an innocent child to hell. Therefore the Church leaves the matter open, stating only that "we commend such children to the mercy of God" - thereby implying that God in His mercy may bring such children home if that is His will.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 07, 2004.

Although there is no official teaching of the Church on cases like yours there is a good theological position on it. Cardinal Cajetan, the great 16th century commentator on St. Thomas Aquinas argued this way. In the ancient Church when baptism required a long process of preparation, those who died when enrolled to be baptized but before the ceremony were granted full Christian burial because they were considered to have been "baptized by intention" i.e. in such sad cases their intention to be baptized is enough. And such individuals were considered "saved." So since infants are baptized because of the vicarious request of their parents, the children of Catholic parents who intend to have them baptized as soon as possible should be considered to have "vicarious baptism of desire." This does not, of course, apply to children of non-Catholics or of Catholics who don't care about having their children baptized. This was the usual position of the Thomists until the 19th century when under Jesuit influence doubts began to be cast on the power of "vicarious baptism of desire." In my humble opinion, those doubts were ill-founded.

-- Interloper (nospam@notmail.com), December 07, 2004.

Also if the worst were to happen, in an emergency ANYONE (even an atheist who intends to do whatever it is he thinks the Church does by baptism) can baptise someone just by putting a drop of water on his/her head and saying "I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit." This can be done even shortly after apparent death as the soul may not yet have left the body.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 07, 2004.

A couple of minor points regarding emergency baptisms:

1) The precise wording of the baptismal formula in English is "I baptize you in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." Omitting the second and third "of" would not affect validity, from what I understand.

2) One should use more than a drop of water, if possible. Baptism by sprinkling is valid, but lawfully the Church calls for baptism by immersion or pouring (Can 854). Of course, in an emergency, you use what amount of water you have available.

-- Fr. Terry Donahue, CC (terrydonahue@usa.net), December 09, 2004.

Lucia

if the Church is refusing Baptism, do it yourself in the manner suggested by Steve and Father Donahue. then, when the Church is willing to baptise, ask for a "conditional" baptism.

when it comes to salvation, to rely upon this -- "...thereby implying that God in His mercy ***may*** bring such children home if that is His will..." -- which is, in any event, a most specious supposition, is imho tres dangerous.

the Church, for a long, long time, taught Limbo - the **theory** that children are not saved, but experience perfect natural (no Beatific Vision) happiness. a Pope defended this teaching when it was challenged by the Pelagians. that's how deep set it was.

they taught it, as a theory, because Dogma - de fide - syllogises as follows: water is necessary for baptism; and baptism is necessary for salvation - ergo water baptism is necessary for salvation.

here's a thread where the subject started to be discussed.

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00CYdz

better safe than sorry.

to be truthful, i would press the priest to do it. turn up at the presbytery and ask him to do it in the kitchen. push for it. and if they refuse, do it yourself.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 09, 2004.

..or Lucia,

if the birth is in a hospital, ask the hospital chaplain to do it. any trinitarian chaplain will do.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 09, 2004.

The parish priest has the responsibility to administer baptism:

"The functions especially entrusted to the parish priest are as follows: 1) The administration of baptism..." (Can 530)

Because of this, even another priest may not baptize in the territory of another diocese or parish without permission of the pastor of that parish, except in case of necessity:

"Except in a case of necessity, it is unlawful for anyone without due permission to confer baptism outside his own territory, not even upon his own subjects." (Can 862)

"in a case of necessity, any person who as the requisite intention may do so." (Can 861.2)

So, if the infant is in danger of death (certainly a case of necessity) you should perform an emergency baptism as described above.

But if it is not a case of necessity, one should not baptize a child on your own initiative or even have another priest baptize without proper permission.

-- Fr. Terry Donahue, CC (terrydonahue@usa.net), December 09, 2004.