C
Catholic_Opinion
Guest
A reader writes:
I was listening to you on podcast and was very interested to find the document about in utero baptism. As a labor and delivery nurse, this info would have made a world of difference (had I know it) for some of the families I have led thru their losses. Could you direct me?
Sure, no problem. I got a number of queries after I mentioned on Catholic Answers Live that there was a document from the Holy Office (the predecessor of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) that expressly allowed for in utero baptism.
First let me note that even if the document didn’t exist, there would be no barrier to baptizing children in utero in emergency circumstances. They’re babies. They need baptism in a hurry (because it’s an emergency). They can be baptized. It’s as simple as that. We wouldn’t need express permission to do this; we’d just need to apply the standard principles to the situation and make sure we were doing it in a valid fashion.
But, fortunately, we do have express warrant from the Holy Office acknowledging the practice. The document is rather old–it came out in 1901, so just over a century ago–but the conclusion has not been repudiated and the same principles would apply.
So, here’s the text of the document, which takes the form of a responsum ad dubium (a response to a question), which in this case was posed by the Archbishop of Utrecht in the Netherlands. Here is the response as printed in the last edition of Denzinger (before Denzinger-Schonmetzer) and published in English as :
**The Matter of Baptism **
[From a Decree of the Holy Office, August 21, 1901]
The Archbishop of Utrecht relates:
[D 1977] “Many medical doctors in hospitals and elsewhere in cases of necessity are accustomed to baptize infants in their mother’s wombs with water mixed with hydrargyrus bichloratus corrosives (in French: chloride de mercure) [in English: ****–ja]**. This water is compounded approximately of a solution of one part of this chloretus hydrargicus in a thousand parts of water, and with this solution of water the potion is poisonous. Now the reason why they use this mixture is that the womb of the mother may not be infected with disease.” Therefore the questions:
The answers are (with the approbation of Leo Xlll):
I also speculated that it might be possible (i.e., was at least arguably possible) to perform baptism by administering water to the or the , since these are composed of the child’s cells and are ephemeral organs that humans have at one stage of life but that then lose (the way a tadpole has a tail that goes away when it becomes a frog).
In practice, though, I would not recommend administering the water to these and would stick with the safer option of administering the water to the conventional body of the baby and, especially, its head.
The reader also writes:
Beyond the amnio idea, I have wondered about baptism as the cervix is examined. Once the amniotic sack is ruptured, the child can be felt and an angiocath with a water-filled syringe could be used to deliver the water (sterile) to the child for baptism. A relatively easy procedure for L&D staff.
If I understand the reader correctly, this would also be a valid way of administering baptism. The key for validity is to get the water in contact with the child. The specific means by which that is accomplished can vary.
The reader also mentions the use of sterile water, which I gather is readily available today to labor and delivery staffs, and this might moot the question of whether one should use a disinfectant in the water to prevent disease. (I don’t know how realiably people had access to genuinely sterile water in 1901; I know they knew about boiling, but this is an aspect of medical history I haven’t researched.)
In principle, though, it would still be legitimate to add small amounts of antiseptic (mercuric chloride or something else) or other anti-infection agents. Whether these would be needed or whether just sterile water would be okay would be a medical decision I’m not qualified to speak to.
I’m an apologist, not a doctor, dangit!
More…
I was listening to you on podcast and was very interested to find the document about in utero baptism. As a labor and delivery nurse, this info would have made a world of difference (had I know it) for some of the families I have led thru their losses. Could you direct me?
Sure, no problem. I got a number of queries after I mentioned on Catholic Answers Live that there was a document from the Holy Office (the predecessor of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) that expressly allowed for in utero baptism.
First let me note that even if the document didn’t exist, there would be no barrier to baptizing children in utero in emergency circumstances. They’re babies. They need baptism in a hurry (because it’s an emergency). They can be baptized. It’s as simple as that. We wouldn’t need express permission to do this; we’d just need to apply the standard principles to the situation and make sure we were doing it in a valid fashion.
But, fortunately, we do have express warrant from the Holy Office acknowledging the practice. The document is rather old–it came out in 1901, so just over a century ago–but the conclusion has not been repudiated and the same principles would apply.
So, here’s the text of the document, which takes the form of a responsum ad dubium (a response to a question), which in this case was posed by the Archbishop of Utrecht in the Netherlands. Here is the response as printed in the last edition of Denzinger (before Denzinger-Schonmetzer) and published in English as :
**The Matter of Baptism **
[From a Decree of the Holy Office, August 21, 1901]
The Archbishop of Utrecht relates:
[D 1977] “Many medical doctors in hospitals and elsewhere in cases of necessity are accustomed to baptize infants in their mother’s wombs with water mixed with hydrargyrus bichloratus corrosives (in French: chloride de mercure) [in English: ****–ja]**. This water is compounded approximately of a solution of one part of this chloretus hydrargicus in a thousand parts of water, and with this solution of water the potion is poisonous. Now the reason why they use this mixture is that the womb of the mother may not be infected with disease.” Therefore the questions:
I. Is a baptism administered with such water certainly or dubiously valid?
II. Is it permitted to avoid all danger of disease to administer the sacrament of baptism with such water?
III. Is it permitted also to use this water when pure water can be applied without any danger of disease?
II. Is it permitted to avoid all danger of disease to administer the sacrament of baptism with such water?
III. Is it permitted also to use this water when pure water can be applied without any danger of disease?
The answers are (with the approbation of Leo Xlll):
To I. This will be answered in. II
To II. It is permitted when real danger of disease is present.
To III. No.
On Catholic Answers Live I mentioned this decree and also discussed how the baptism could be performed. One way would be to apply the water of baptism to the baby through a syringe, as is used in .To II. It is permitted when real danger of disease is present.
To III. No.
I also speculated that it might be possible (i.e., was at least arguably possible) to perform baptism by administering water to the or the , since these are composed of the child’s cells and are ephemeral organs that humans have at one stage of life but that then lose (the way a tadpole has a tail that goes away when it becomes a frog).
In practice, though, I would not recommend administering the water to these and would stick with the safer option of administering the water to the conventional body of the baby and, especially, its head.
The reader also writes:
Beyond the amnio idea, I have wondered about baptism as the cervix is examined. Once the amniotic sack is ruptured, the child can be felt and an angiocath with a water-filled syringe could be used to deliver the water (sterile) to the child for baptism. A relatively easy procedure for L&D staff.
If I understand the reader correctly, this would also be a valid way of administering baptism. The key for validity is to get the water in contact with the child. The specific means by which that is accomplished can vary.
The reader also mentions the use of sterile water, which I gather is readily available today to labor and delivery staffs, and this might moot the question of whether one should use a disinfectant in the water to prevent disease. (I don’t know how realiably people had access to genuinely sterile water in 1901; I know they knew about boiling, but this is an aspect of medical history I haven’t researched.)
In principle, though, it would still be legitimate to add small amounts of antiseptic (mercuric chloride or something else) or other anti-infection agents. Whether these would be needed or whether just sterile water would be okay would be a medical decision I’m not qualified to speak to.
I’m an apologist, not a doctor, dangit!
More…