Baptizing an infant after death

[BKD]

I have a friend who is training to be a lay hospital chaplain. A non-Catholic couple approached her and asked her to baptize their deceased infant. The child had not recently died but had been dead for some hours. She baptized the child.

I told her I thought this was not correct. I’ve heard different things from different priests though. For example, I have heard that once medical death has been declared, the child is not to be baptized. I have also heard that if it is right after the baby has been declared dead, then it is acceptable to baptize. The argument was that we don’t know how long the soul hangs around the body after death. I have never heard it said that if the child has been deceased for a number of hours that it was acceptable to baptize.

She just went and talked to a priest, one who works as a hospital chaplain, who told her that he didn’t see a problem with what she did. He was arguing that you meet people where they are and you meet their pastoral needs.

I need some definitive documentation references on this. Any suggestions? Any universal or local (diocesan) pastoral guidelines would be appreciated.

 

[ejlo1]

This is from the Archdicese of St. Louis:
archstl.org/files/worship/images/stories/infant_commendation.pdf

and this is from the vatican:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

 

[Shin]

How to Baptize in the Case of a Miscarriage

 

[Shin]

‘It may be added that the fact that a fetus does not breathe is no proof it is dead. It is not unusual for a full-term child not to breathe for an hour or longer after birth. These are valuable hints for those concerned. Who are they? After the mother’s death, when the Caesarean section is not only permissible, but required in order to baptize the child or fetus, a surgeon is to be called in to perform the operation. He should not be easily believed if he asserts that the child is dead. In that case any one else who has the skill and courage to extract the fetus may be invited, provided it is not against the law. Whether the fetus is certainly alive can be discovered by diagnosis in the earlier stages of pregnancy, and by breathing in the later stages, although, as stated above, non-breathing is not an absolute proof of death. At any rate, as long as putrefaction has not set in, conditional baptism is to be administered.’

Rev. P. Chas. Augustine, A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law

 

[Shin]

I have read of an extraordinary case in which a person revived even -after- putrefaction has set in.

If life is doubtful, but death is not definite, then conditional baptism.

 

[puzzleannie]

I have a friend who is training to be a lay hospital chaplain. A non-Catholic couple approached her and asked her to baptize their deceased infant. The child had not recently died but had been dead for some hours. She baptized the child.

.

she was being kind and pastoral
had she been a priest she might have acted differently, or a doctor who could have definitively ruled on time of death, but can you think of a way she could have refused without hurting the couple?
by expecting her to refuse we are expecting her to exercise professional expertise that belong properly to the doctor and to the priest.

 

[heathernoel]

Two of my sons have died before birth. In Marshall’s case, I was told no baptism because he’d been gone for too long (maybe a day?). In Jonah’s case, he died JUST before birth, but there were complications. But because he was born within 4 hours of his death, he was baptized by our Cathedral’s priest.

I cherish that baptismal certificate and with I had one for Marshall

 

[happymommy]

How to Baptize in the Case of a Miscarriage

I’m not real thrilled with

When a fetus dies without baptism through no one’s fault, it is not a great tragedy. It will live forever in Limbo and have every ounce of natural happiness of which it is capable.]

They don’t know where the baby went. None of us now where any of our loved ones are, so I find they are overstepping their bounds a little by saying this. And where is “Limbo”?

 

[ConstantineTG]

A priest told me (and a class) once that even after about 3 hours of death, they can still baptize since we do not know when a soul leaves the body. If the soul is still there, then good. If not, then nothing happens.

 

[SonCatcher]

I’m not real thrilled with

They don’t know where the baby went. None of us now where any of our loved ones are, so I find they are overstepping their bounds a little by saying this. And where is “Limbo”?

That document is from 1959. Understanding has changed quite a bit since then.

Limbo was originally a term to refer to the place where the righteous deceased of the OT resided before Jesus opened the gates of Heaven. Someone reused the term to describe what happens to unbaptized infants because they couldn’t resolve the contradiction that Baptism is necessary for salvation and that babies committed no actual sin to require damnation.

 

[happymommy]

That document is from 1959. Understanding has changed quite a bit since then.

Limbo was originally a term to refer to the place where the righteous deceased of the OT resided before Jesus opened the gates of Heaven. Someone reused the term to describe what happens to unbaptized infants because they couldn’t resolve the contradiction that Baptism is necessary for salvation and that babies committed no actual sin to require damnation.

thank you

 

[thistle]

I’m not real thrilled with

They don’t know where the baby went. None of us now where any of our loved ones are, so I find they are overstepping their bounds a little by saying this. And where is “Limbo”?

Limbo for Infants has never been a Church teaching. It has only ever been a theological hypothesis.

 

[Vincent1984]

she was being kind and pastoral
had she been a priest she might have acted differently, or a doctor who could have definitively ruled on time of death, but can you think of a way she could have refused without hurting the couple?
by expecting her to refuse we are expecting her to exercise professional expertise that belong properly to the doctor and to the priest.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect a lay hospital “chaplain” (though of course, chaplains must be priests) to know that sacraments are for the living. If someone doesn’t know that, what else doesn’t she know which would seem essential for her role?

If a person may be dead but may be living, conditional baptism is fitting, with explanation to those concerned of what is happening. If a person is undoubtedly long dead and it is clear to all concerned that the body is a corpe, baptism is not possible so should surely not be attempted.

 

[happymommy]

Limbo for Infants has never been a Church teaching. It has only ever been a theological hypothesis.

okay, thank you. I have a hard time thinking that God would do that to a baby, but maybe that’s because I hold on to hope of getting to see my miscarried baby in Heaven someday

 

[Will_S]

That document is from 1959. Understanding has changed quite a bit since then.

Limbo was originally a term to refer to the place where the righteous deceased of the OT resided before Jesus opened the gates of Heaven. Someone reused the term to describe what happens to unbaptized infants because they couldn’t resolve the contradiction that Baptism is necessary for salvation and that babies committed no actual sin to require damnation.

Yeah, it was just “someone” called St. Thomas Aquinas. A real nobody apparently…

 

[Will_S]

Limbo for Infants has never been a Church teaching. It has only ever been a theological hypothesis.

This is wrong. The Limbo of Infants has been (and still is) a Church teaching that describes one of the possible fates of unbaptized infants. The other possibilities are hell and Heaven.

What you probably meant to say is that the existence of Limbo has never been dogmatically defined.

 

[Will_S]

okay, thank you. I have a hard time thinking that God would do that to a baby, but maybe that’s because I hold on to hope of getting to see my miscarried baby in Heaven someday

You have a hard time thinking that God would “do that” to a baby, when “do that” is the equivalent of an eternity in the Garden of Eden?

To me that doesn’t seem bad. Not as good an eternity in the presence of God, but not bad.

I recently spent a lot of time discussing this issue in another thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=567886

 

[puzzleannie]

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect a lay hospital “chaplain” (though of course, chaplains must be priests) to know that sacraments are for the living. If someone doesn’t know that, what else doesn’t she know which would seem essential for her role?

If a person may be dead but may be living, conditional baptism is fitting, with explanation to those concerned of what is happening. If a person is undoubtedly long dead and it is clear to all concerned that the body is a corpe, baptism is not possible so should surely not be attempted.

a conditional baptism has no bearing on present case and refers only to baptism conferred on someone the facts of whose baptism are in doubt. Since the “lay chaplain” (an oxymoron as you rightly point out) is not a doctor and we don’t know if death was formally pronounced she was probably right in giving the benefit of the doubt. We don’t know, we weren’t there and since the person is not a priest, nor a doctor, did the best she could under the circumstances.

God does not “do” anything to the baby who dies before baptism except to exten his love and mercy, in which we are obligated to trust.

 

[Evan]

A priest told me (and a class) once that even after about 3 hours of death, they can still baptize since we do not know when a soul leaves the body. If the soul is still there, then good. If not, then nothing happens.

When my father died, someone came into the room and declared the official time of death. As we were still in the room a minute later, he took a deep breath. The nurse said, it was just the body in its last attempts to live, but that he was dead. So I think that even the medical personnel could really never identify when a persons soul leaves a body. They may declare the brain is no longer functioning, or the heart has stopped, or the body has no hope or resussitation. So I see no problem with baptism hours after the ‘official’ death. We do not know if some part of the body still lives and the soul remains.

 

[Shin]

It’s very true today that often what the medical doctors declare as death, is not according to Catholic terminology death – which is when the soul leaves the body. The definition of death has become a moving target in the past few decades because of the desire to harvest organs for transplant, which if not harvested while the patient is still living (thus killing the patient) are no longer good for transplant.

Both the beginning and the end of life are being revised and revised again in these times to suit people’s desires rather than their reality.