Child Baptism

[o_mlly]

After reading in our Catechism on the Necessity of Baptism, e.g. “… All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism” (#1261), and " … [a]s a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights" (#2273), I cannot develop a principled theological agrument consistent with our Catholic culture of life for withholding Baptism from the conceived yet unborn infant. Anyone?

 

[Phemie]

After reading in our Catechism on the Necessity of Baptism, e.g. “… All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism” (#1261), and " … [a]s a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights" (#2273), I cannot develop a principled theological agrument consistent with our Catholic culture of life for withholding Baptism from the conceived yet unborn infant. Anyone?

You would have to violate the integrity of the mother to access the child in utero and you would put the child at risk of being born early. I don’t think the Church is willing to go that far.

 

[Seatuck]

After reading in our Catechism on the Necessity of Baptism, e.g. “… All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism” (#1261), and " … [a]s a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights" (#2273), I cannot develop a principled theological agrument consistent with our Catholic culture of life for withholding Baptism from the conceived yet unborn infant. Anyone?

How do you picture this being done without disturbing the pregnancy?

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

After reading in our Catechism on the Necessity of Baptism, e.g. “… All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism” (#1261), and " … [a]s a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights" (#2273), I cannot develop a principled theological agrument consistent with our Catholic culture of life for withholding Baptism from the conceived yet unborn infant. Anyone?

It’s not theological but the practical that prevents “the conceived yet unborn infant” from receiving Sacramental Baptism.

 

[Mattapoisett64]

I think the concept proposed by the OP goes way beyond the “impractical” to a faulty and potentially superstitious understanding of the Sacrament. Where would such a proposal stop? Surgical invasion of the womb at 1 month of gestation with maybe an 80 or 90% chance that such a procedure could cause a miscarriage - the grief of the parents supposedly soothed because their baby was now in heaven? Piercing of the amniotic sac when the child is further along with risk of infection, possibly birth defects, premature delivery, and million-dollar neonatal intensive care stays? Some kind of post “Baptism” church ceremony once the child’s gender were known (or would we force the parents to pay for an expensive chromosomal examination so the gender were established in utero so an appropriate name could be given, even if the parents didn’t want to know until birth)?

At what point would all this cease being Sacramental and become voodoo?

 

[zz912]

Exactly how would you sprinkle the child with water?

 

[thomas_jd]

After reading in our Catechism on the Necessity of Baptism, e.g. “… All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism” (#1261), and " … [a]s a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights" (#2273), I cannot develop a principled theological agrument consistent with our Catholic culture of life for withholding Baptism from the conceived yet unborn infant. Anyone?

There are three different forms of baptism. By blood: by desire; and by the sacrament with water.
Baptism brings us into the church along with it’s responsibilities.Godparents are willing to accept the duties of this position in assisting the baptized when they are called upon to fufill thier obligation. I never heard of the baptizing of the unborn. I see no valid reason for this.

 

[PhilotheaZ]

I think it might be possible to baptize a preborn child that was receiving surgery in utero. See jimmyakin.org/2009/06/in-utero-baptism.html .

 

[jmcrae]

After reading in our Catechism on the Necessity of Baptism, e.g. “… All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism” (#1261), and " … [a]s a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights" (#2273), I cannot develop a principled theological agrument consistent with our Catholic culture of life for withholding Baptism from the conceived yet unborn infant. Anyone?

God does not require of us things that are physically impossible. Once born, obviously the child should be baptized as soon as the Church can be booked, whatever preparations needed can be made, and a priest can be found.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Exactly how would you sprinkle the child with water?

Not even the Latin Church performs baptism by sprinking, but by pouring.

 

[o_mlly]

I think the concept proposed by the OP goes way beyond the “impractical” to a faulty and potentially superstitious understanding of the Sacrament. Where would such a proposal stop? Surgical invasion of the womb at 1 month of gestation with maybe an 80 or 90% chance that such a procedure could cause a miscarriage - the grief of the parents supposedly soothed because their baby was now in heaven? Piercing of the amniotic sac when the child is further along with risk of infection, possibly birth defects, premature delivery, and million-dollar neonatal intensive care stays? Some kind of post “Baptism” church ceremony once the child’s gender were known (or would we force the parents to pay for an expensive chromosomal examination so the gender were established in utero so an appropriate name could be given, even if the parents didn’t want to know until birth)?

At what point would all this cease being Sacramental and become voodoo?

Your post seems as shallow and naive as Nicodemus’ initial understanding of the sacrament. Like Nicodemus, you focus on the physical instead of the mysterium. The transmission of God’s grace does not require an invasion of the mother as both you and Nicodemus wrongly conclude.

I suggest you read or re-read the matter and form required for a valid Baptism (“The matter of this sacrament is true and natural water … The form is: I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost”).

And refresh yourself on Canon Law regarding this sacrament, i.e., “Can. 867 §1. Parents are obliged to take care that infants are baptized in the first few weeks; as soon as possible after the birth or even before it, they are to go to the pastor to request the sacrament for their child and to be prepared properly for it.”

While I agree Baptism in the womb is not the norm, it is allowed. I asked for principled agruments to support withholding Baptism from the unborn as remaining the norm in light of our understanding that life begins at conception, not birth. The immortal soul of the unborn child is in a state of original sin. Does the birth event change the child’s soul with respect to its disposition to receiving the sacrament of Baptism? I think not.

 

[o_mlly]

I think it might be possible to baptize a preborn child that was receiving surgery in utero. See jimmyakin.org/2009/06/in-utero-baptism.html .

Thanks for the link. I found the thread provocative and instructive. Also, good to know that forums other than this one can drift so easily from the original post to almost anywhere.

 

[Phemie]

And refresh yourself on Canon Law regarding this sacrament, i.e., “Can. 867 §1. Parents are obliged to take care that infants are baptized in the first few weeks; as soon as possible after the birth or even before it, they are to go to the pastor to request the sacrament for their child and to be prepared properly for it.”

The part you have highlighted refers to approaching the priest and preparing for the sacrament, not to the actual sacrament taking place. We always encourage them to do that before the baby’s born so that baptism can take place soon after.

As for the process and requirements for baptism it requires that the minister pour the water on the person and speak the words at the same time. Except for moments like the surgery in utero scenario posted above, there is no possibility of doing that without invading the uterus.

 

[SMHW]

Are you suggesting amniotic fluid is proper matter for baptism? Since the water must be poured directly on the child I’m not sure what other fluid you would imagine could come in contact with the child, short of surgery.

The phrase, after the birth or even before it, is, of course, meant to clarify the following phrase about when the parents should approach the pastor. It can not be grammatically construed (at least in English) to refer to the timing of baptism itself because there is a semicolon between the phrases. In fact, the translation of the canon I’ve seen uses a period rather than a semicolon between the phrase about the timing of the baptism and the timing of approaching that pastor to ask for it.

 

[o_mlly]

The part you have highlighted refers to approaching the priest and preparing for the sacrament, not to the actual sacrament taking place. We always encourage them to do that before the baby’s born so that baptism can take place soon after.

As for the process and requirements for baptism it requires that the minister pour the water on the person and speak the words at the same time. Except for moments like the surgery in utero scenario posted above, there is no possibility of doing that without invading the uterus.

Thank you for your comments. Like many of the comments, the argument for maintaining that the sacrament of Baptism be normally withheld pending birth is based on, and only on, the proximate matter of the sacrament – the pyhsical union of water with the person.

Of course I respect the current Catholic postiion. However, the proximate matter required for the validity of the sacrament is not part of eternal law but man’s law. Remember that the form and remote matter for this sacrament does not preclude the Baptism of the unborn. Further, the transmission of God’s grace in infant Baptism, unlike all the other sacraments including non-infant Baptism, is independent of the recipient’s inner dispostion. God’s sanctifying grace flows if only the proper form and matter are present even if the minister is a well-intentioned pagan. The infant’s role in the sacrament is to be but alive. And, I think, unfortunately, also born – certainly, an event that changes physical status but does not change whatsoever in spiritual status – the child is absent sanctifying grace.

I think there is an apparent discontinuity in Catholic teaching. We are thankfully aggressively pro temporal life and demand the civil rights especially the right to life of the unborn. How much more so should we be pro eternal life for the unborn? Does the unborn have less of a right to eternal life than the born?

I understand my sympathy to expand the population of the Kingdom by allowing unborn Baptism (by changing the proximate matter in order to make the sacrament practical) may only be considered whimsical since I am not of the Magisterium and, therefore, may not be Spirit led.

However, what of the *in vitro *children awaiting implantation which for many will never occur. Ought we not baptize these “unwombed” and unborn children before they die in their frozen state?

To leave the fate of these children to the mercy of God when we potentially have means to brings them into the Church is, I think, tantamount to tempting the Lord. In the second temptation, the devil tries to tempt God by encouranging Jesus to throw himself off the pinnacle of the temple and relying in God’s mercy to save Him. Citing Psalm 91, the devil says, "He will give his angels charge of you, and on their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone.” Jesus didn’t test the truth of the Psalm rather Jesus quotes Deuteronomy 6:16, “You shall not tempt the Lord your God.” The word that we have today is that the fate of these unbaptized children is at best uncertain, at worst, they are denied the Beatific vision for eternity. Are we not testing the mercy of God by withholding Baptism from the “unwombed” and unborm child?

I’m hopeful that Father Ted Pacholczyk will get around to this moral dillema in his excellent analyses of the new moral issues confronting us with the technological changes in human reproduction.

Thank you all for your comments. I will close my

 

[bpbasilphx]

\However, what of the in vitro children awaiting implantation which for many will never occur. Ought we not baptize these “unwombed” and unborn children before they die in their frozen state?\

And since these embryos are at least nearly microscopic, how can you make sure the baptismal water will hit their heads AND FLOW, which is part of a valid baptism?

 

[SMHW]

However, the proximate matter required for the validity of the sacrament is not part of eternal law but man’s law.

o_mlly, if you are still reading, what is your basis for your assertion that this is a matter of man’s law rather than “eternal” law? I’m not trying to debate. I’m just curious.

 

[o_mlly]

o_mlly, if you are still reading, what is your basis for your assertion that this is a matter of man’s law rather than “eternal” law? I’m not trying to debate. I’m just curious.

Because the outward sign of Baptism has changed over the course of time: immersion, infusion and aspersion. That which changes is not eternal. A couple of citations:
“By the present authorized ritual of the Latin Church, baptism must be performed by a laving of the head of the candidate. Moralists, however, state that in case of necessity, the baptism would probably be valid if the water were applied to any other principal part of the body, as the breast or shoulder. In this case, however, conditional baptism would have to be administered if the person survived (St. Alphonsus, no. 107). In like manner they consider as probably valid the baptism of an infant in its mother’s womb, provided the water, by means of an instrument, would actually flow upon the child. Such baptism is, however, later to be repeated conditionally, if the child survives its birth (Lehmkuhl, n. 61)” (empahsis mine).
newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

“What are we to do in these and similar cases? Shall we deny people the sacrament because immersion is impractical or impossible for them? Ironically, the Fundamentalist, who acknowledges that baptism is commanded but thinks it isn’t essential for salvation, may make it impossible for many people to be baptized at all in obedience to God’s command. The Catholic, who believes baptism confers grace and is normatively necessary for salvation, maintains that God wouldn’t require a form of baptism that, for some people, is impossible.”
catholic.com/library/Baptism_Immersion_Only.asp

 

[SMHW]

Because the outward sign of Baptism has changed over the course of time: immersion, infusion and aspersion. That which changes is not eternal. A couple of citations:
“By the present authorized ritual of the Latin Church, baptism must be performed by a laving of the head of the candidate. Moralists, however, state that in case of necessity, the baptism would probably be valid if the water were applied to any other principal part of the body, as the breast or shoulder. In this case, however, conditional baptism would have to be administered if the person survived (St. Alphonsus, no. 107). In like manner they consider as probably valid the baptism of an infant in its mother’s womb, provided the water, by means of an instrument, would actually flow upon the child. Such baptism is, however, later to be repeated conditionally, if the child survives its birth (Lehmkuhl, n. 61)” (empahsis mine).
newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

Yes, but in the cases you’ve mentioned the common denominator is that water must come in direct contact with the child. In the case of an unborn child, it is unclear how this can be accomplished except by surgical means. As a matter of practicality I can’t imagine most parents would pay for a surgical procedure which carries a significant risk of fetal mortality in order to baptize their children when the baptism would be of questionable validity (as evidenced by the need for a follow-up conditional baptism.

To the best of my knowledge immersion and infusion are both valid and licit. Aspersion may be considered illicit but I don’t know that it is invalid.

 

[o_mlly]

Yes, but in the cases you’ve mentioned the common denominator is that water must come in direct contact with the child. In the case of an unborn child, it is unclear how this can be accomplished except by surgical means. As a matter of practicality I can’t imagine most parents would pay for a surgical procedure which carries a significant risk of fetal mortality in order to baptize their children when the baptism would be of questionable validity (as evidenced by the need for a follow-up conditional baptism.

To the best of my knowledge immersion and infusion are both valid and licit. Aspersion may be considered illicit but I don’t know that it is invalid.

I have not argued that the present rite facilitates unborn Baptism. For practical purposes, excepting the extreme situation, we both agree the Latin rite presently precludes Baptism for the unborn. The point I present is should the rite be re-examined by our Magisterium in light of modern medicine.

If you hold that the Latin rite is unchangeable by an act of the Magisterium, we disagree. While the remote matter and form are based on scripture, the proximate matter is not, to my knowledge.

In my second citation, which you did not quote in your post, the basic premise for such a change, if the Magisterium were so moved by the Spirit, is given.

"The Catholic, who believes baptism confers grace and is normatively necessary for salvation, maintains that God wouldn’t require a form of baptism that, for some people, is impossible.”
catholic.com/library/Bapt…rsion_Only.asp

I believe as our Magisterium teaches that the unborn are people in every sense of the word. I will leave it at that. Prayer and petition are the laity’s only recourse and docility if the Magisterium is unmoved.