Popes in conflict?

[thinkandmull]

An article on Jimmy Akin’s website has the following decree in it:

"From a Decree of the Holy Office, August 21, 1901

The Archbishop of Utrecht relates:

‘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: mercuric chloride–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?

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."

In letting the first question to be answered by the second, it is tells us that baptisms in the womb are valid. However, in the canon law of 1914 they are called conditional baptisms because Benedict XV didn’t want to decide the issue. But was it not already decided here by Leo XIII? It seems like an example of a latter Pope rejecting a previous Pope’s decision in favor of speculation on the issue. Am I getting it right here?

 

[Usagi]

The way I’m reading what you’ve quoted, Leo was ruling on the question of whether the water with chemicals added was valid matter for the sacrament. The question of whether baptism of infants in the womb is to be conditional or unconditional baptism may have remained open at that time.

(I’m not familiar with the later ruling by Benedict XV, but I thought the reason for the conditional baptism in such cases was that it could not always be determined whether the child was actually alive. Only living persons can be baptized, so I thought the conditional formula was something like “If you are alive, I baptize you…” rather than the more usual conditional baptism for adults of uncertain baptismal status, “If you are not already baptized, I baptize you…”)

Usagi

 

[thinkandmull]

EWTN says baptism other than on the head is doubtful.

ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=329807&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=

The 1914 Canon Law doesn’t say specifically if the child might be dead or not. It says you can conditionally baptize the foot, when life can be certainly detected. What had been on my mind was that laws by the Church are always (1) valid and (2) inherently good. I guess the exception to (1) is when the Church says it is conditional. I understand what you mean about Leo XIII. The first question about validity was not answered, but instead by “It is **permitted **when real danger of disease is present.” By not answering the first question, it adverted making a law that would latter be changed into a conditional (which would undermine the authority of the Church). It’s a subtle point, but considering that the inquiry was about the mixture of fluids, the authority remains intact. (wiping my forehead)

 

[thinkandmull]

My conclusion on this is that the Holy Spirit was watching over this careful case. If the Church says something is valid that doesn’t simply mean that it’s matter is valid, but that it is effectual as a sacrament. Also, when something is permitted it is valid as well. The nuance is that the Leo XIII decree ignored the first question as to validity and then said it is permitted. So when Benedict XV assumed the throne and said that it was conditional, he was not reversing former authority. So the principle must be that the Church is speaking conditionally when she specifically passing after a question put to her about validity, as is clearly done in this case