Prompt Baptism of Infants Urged -Canon 770

[SFD]

Canon Law Digest:

Prompt Baptism of Infants Urged (Holy Office, Monitum, 18 February, 1958) AAS 50-114

A warning (Monitum) of the Holy Office:

In certain places the practice has grown of postponing the conferring of baptism for mistaken reasons of convenience or of a liturgigal character. Such postponement draws support from certain opinions, devoid however of any solid foundation, regarding the eternal destiny of infants who die without baptism.

Accordingly this Supreme Sacred Congregation, with the approval of the Supreme Pontiff, warns the faithful that infants are to be baptised as soon as possible, according to the prescription of Canon 770. Pastors and preachers are exhorted to urge the fulfilment of this obligation.

Given at Rome from the Holy Office, the 18th of February, 1958.

 

[Pug]

I agree that parents ought to be instructed to baptize their children promptly. The current CIC seems to specify a time frame of a few weeks, unless there is a danger of death, which speeds the time frame up to “without delay”. Also the parents are to receive instruction about their duties, even possibly before the birth of the child.

It is probably affected by local custom to some extent, like do they baptize infants during the main Sunday mass or after it, for example.

 

[Fuerza]

I agree that parents ought to be instructed to baptize their children promptly. The current CIC seems to specify a time frame of a few weeks, unless there is a danger of death, which speeds the time frame up to “without delay”. Also the parents are to receive instruction about their duties, even possibly before the birth of the child.

It is probably affected by local custom to some extent, like do they baptize infants during the main Sunday mass or after it, for example.

Over here the custom is generally within a few months, usually 2 or 3. My nephew was baptized at about 3.5 months, although even I thought that that was a little later than usual.

 

[japhy]

See also Pastoralis Actio, from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and approved by Pope John Paul II, of 1980.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Concerning Canon 770, the 1917 Code of Canon Law is no longer in effect.

The current code (1983) canon 867 now applies.

 

[SFD]

Concerning Canon 770, the 1917 Code of Canon Law is no longer in effect.

The current code (1983) canon 867 now applies.

Did any of you read the warning?

Prompt Baptism of Infants Urged (Holy Office, Monitum, 18 February, 1958) AAS 50-114

A warning (Monitum) of the Holy Office:

In certain places the practice has grown of postponing the conferring of baptism for mistaken reasons of convenience or of a liturgical character. Such postponement draws support from certain opinions, devoid however of any solid foundation, regarding the eternal destiny of infants who die without baptism.

Accordingly this Supreme Sacred Congregation, with the approval of the Supreme Pontiff, warns the faithful that infants are to be baptised as soon as possible, according to the prescription of Canon 770. Pastors and preachers are exhorted to urge the fulfilment of this obligation.

Given at Rome from the Holy Office, the 18th of February, 1958.

This is the mind of the Church here. It also is consistent with all other references to the necessity of the baptism of infants.

SFD

 

[Pug]

Did any of you read the warning?

Yes. Furthermore, I did try to look up the text of the monitum, but could not locate it online. Here is a declaration of the Church on the topic of infant baptism, from the Council of Florence, session eleven:

With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred for forty or eighty days or any other period of time in accordance with the usage of some people, but it should be conferred as soon as it conveniently can; and if there is imminent danger of death, the child should be baptized straightaway without any delay, even by a lay man or a woman in the form of the church, if there is no priest, as is contained more fully in the decree on the Armenians.

It, too, makes a distinction between the regular case and the infant in some type of imminent danger of death. I am unsure about the point that is of interest to you. Is this a thread about limbo? I had taken it as an opportunity to encourage parents to seek baptism for their children (as per the exact thread title), instead of waiting around, perhaps saying things like, “I’ll let Junior here decide when he gets old enough to think for himself,” which is one of the lines of reasoning that I’ve heard from people. So I mentioned that the code of canon law that is in force does indeed tell parents to go to the pastor and seek baptism for Junior, and it even gives a time frame, to help us know what is expected.

Otherwise, I can see frantic mothers in the delivery room, grabbing one of those ever-present hospital plastic water jugs and administering emergency baptism on the healthy baby as soon as he is laid upon her breast. I don’t think that is what is intended.

 

[thistle]

Can. 867 §1 Parents are obliged to see that their infants are baptised within the first few weeks. As soon as possible after the birth, indeed even before it, they are to approach the parish priest to ask for the sacrament for their child, and to be themselves duly prepared for it.

§2 If the infant is in danger of death, it is to be baptised without any delay.

 

[Phemie]

Can. 867 §1 Parents are obliged to see that their infants are baptised within the first few weeks. As soon as possible after the birth, indeed even before it, they are to approach the parish priest to ask for the sacrament for their child, and to be themselves duly prepared for it.

§2 If the infant is in danger of death, it is to be baptised without any delay.

But then you have this

Can. 860 §1. Apart from a case of necessity, baptism is not to be conferred in private houses, unless the local ordinary has permitted it for a grave cause.

§2. Except in a case of necessity or for some other compelling pastoral reason, baptism is not to be celebrated in hospitals unless the diocesan bishop has established otherwise.

I’ve heard of mothers refusing to leave the hospital to drive home without their baby being baptized. To me that speak more of a superstition than a true understanding of baptism.

I remember flying home with DD to have her baptized in my home parish. My mother was freaking out so I reassured her by telling her I’d bring some water with me on the plane and if anything seemed to be going wrong I’d baptize her myself.

We made it home and she was baptized in the same church where I’d been baptized and married, as was her brother 2 1/2 years later.

 

[lillydew]

Could I dare ask what anyone thinks has happened to our first child that died suddenly, at 30 weeks gestation and therefore was not baptised? We did give her a church funeral and her ashes were buried in a special tree we had just for her. This tree has just recently been given to a carmelite order who have planted it with the remains of their deceased sisters.

 

[Phemie]

Could I dare ask what anyone thinks has happened to our first child that died suddenly, at 30 weeks gestation and therefore was not baptised? We did give her a church funeral and her ashes were buried in a special tree we had just for her. This tree has just recently been given to a carmelite order who have planted it with the remains of their deceased sisters.

The Church teaching is that we don’t know what happens to the souls of infants who die without baptism but that we entrust them to God’s infinite mercy.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Did any of you read the warning?

Prompt Baptism of Infants Urged (Holy Office, Monitum, 18 February, 1958) AAS 50-114

This is the mind of the Church here. It also is consistent with all other references to the necessity of the baptism of infants.

SFD

It would be more correct as you point out to say WAS the mind of the Church in 1958. It is very similar to the mind of the Church today in the current Code.

 

[japhy]

Can 770. Infantes quamprimum baptizentur; et parochi ac concionatores frequenter fideles de hac gravi eorum obligatione commoneant.

“Infants are to be baptized as soon as possible; and pastors and preachers should frequently impress upon the faithful concerning this serious obligation of theirs.”

I think the Church still has the same mind, even if this particular 1917 law is no longer in the Canon. It’s worded differently, and the Church has said as much outside of the CIC.

 

[SFD]

Yes. Furthermore, I did try to look up the text of the monitum, but could not locate it online.

You can’t find everything “online”. It’s from Bouscaren - OConner, Canon Law Digest, 1958. It’s also noted as AAS 50-114 if you want to verify it.

It, too, makes a distinction between the regular case and the infant in some type of imminent danger of death. I am unsure about the point that is of interest to you. Is this a thread about limbo?

This is a bit vague. There is no conflict between the two and they don’t agree on the point you seem to be implying here in bold.

In certain places the practice has grown of postponing the conferring of baptism for mistaken reasons of convenience or of a liturgical character. Such postponement draws support from certain opinions, devoid however of any solid foundation, regarding the eternal destiny of infants who die without baptism.

Accordingly this Supreme Sacred Congregation, with the approval of the Supreme Pontiff, warns the faithful that infants are to be baptised as soon as possible, according to the prescription of Canon 770. Pastors and preachers are exhorted to urge the fulfilment of this obligation.

Given at Rome from the Holy Office, the 18th of February, 1958.

I had taken it as an opportunity to encourage parents to seek baptism for their children (as per the exact thread title), instead of waiting around, perhaps saying things like, “I’ll let Junior here decide when he gets old enough to think for himself,” which is one of the lines of reasoning that I’ve heard from people. So I mentioned that the code of canon law that is in force does indeed tell parents to go to the pastor and seek baptism for Junior, and it even gives a time frame, to help us know what is expected.

This is very vague as well.

Otherwise, I can see frantic mothers in the delivery room, grabbing one of those ever-present hospital plastic water jugs and administering emergency baptism on the healthy baby as soon as he is laid upon her breast. I don’t think that is what is intended.

Canon 770 did not support this type of imprudence either. Notice I use the word imprudence, not superstition.

Phemie:

I’ve heard of mothers refusing to leave the hospital to drive home without their baby being baptized. To me that speak more of a superstition than a true understanding of baptism.

Superstition? So the requirement of baptism for infants is a superstition?

SFD

 

[SFD]

The Church teaching is that we don’t know what happens to the souls of infants who die without baptism but that we entrust them to God’s infinite mercy.

This is the Holy Office speaking here, with the approval of the Pope:

Such postponement draws support from certain opinions, devoid however of any solid foundation, regarding the eternal destiny of infants who die without baptism.

Pope Pius XII said this very thing in stronger words in his Address to Midwives:

**Supernatural life **

If what We have said up to now concerns the protection and care of natural life, much more so must it concern the supernatural life, which the newly born receives with Baptism. In the present economy there is no other way to communicate that life to the child who has not attained the use of reason. Above all, the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death without it salvation and supernatural happiness—the beatific vision of God—are impossible. An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open. Therefore, if it is considered that charity to our fellowman obliges us to assist him in the case of necessity, then this obligation is so much the more important and urgent as the good to be obtained or the evil to be avoided is the greater, and in the measure that the needy person is incapable of helping or saving himself with his own powers; and **so it is easy to understand the great importance of providing for the baptism of the child deprived of complete reason **who finds himself in grave danger or at death’s threshold.
Undoubtedly this duty binds the parents in the first place, but in case of necessity, when there is no time to lose or it is not possible to call a priest, the sublime office of conferring baptism is yours.

 

[lillydew]

Pope Pius XII said this very thing in stronger words in his Address to Midwives:

Could you please interpret this in your own words so that I know I’m reading your intent correctly? Thanks.

 

[Pug]

You can’t find everything “online”. It’s from Bouscaren - OConner, Canon Law Digest, 1958. It’s also noted as AAS 50-114 if you want to verify it.

This is a bit vague. There is no conflict between the two and they don’t agree on the point you seem to be implying here in bold.

This is very vague as well.

Canon 770 did not support this type of imprudence either. Notice I use the word imprudence, not superstition.

Superstition? So the requirement of baptism for infants is a superstition?

SFD

I am aware of that. I mentioned “online” in particular in the hopes that you might have the link that I could not find. My skills with Google are dismal.

You seem to be saying that Florence makes no distinction between the time frames for the average infant and the one in imminent danger of death? I read it as saying that for the one it ought to be as soon as it conveniently can, and for the other it ought to be straightaway without delay, and maybe at the hands of a layman if needed. These seem different.

I agree that “in the first few weeks” from CIC 867 is somewhat vague. A more precise specification could be given, I imagine. Same with “an infant in danger of death”. They seem reasonably suited, though, to guide your average obedient parent on their duty.

Since you included a response to something Phemie said on the end of your post, I’ll mention that I do not think the requirement to baptize your infant is a superstition. Nor do I think the 1917 code supported mom baptizing Jr as I described.

Are you concerned that a belief in the happiness of Limbo (infantium, not patrum) perhaps has enticed some parents to fail to baptize their children promptly, because the parent figures the child will be happy if they die before baptism? Back in 1958, Limbo seems the likely culprit, whereas if it were written today, then Heaven would be the likely culprit. At least, that seems the case in the USA.

 

[SFD]

Could you please interpret this in your own words so that I know I’m reading your intent correctly? Thanks.

Why can we both just read it? Do you want to be able to disagree with me instead of Pope Pius XII?

My position is that I accept what Pope Pius XII said and the certain doctrine behind what he said. Btw, the 1958 warning by the Holy Office was approved by the Pope and the Holy Office is one of the Roman Congregations.

4. Lastly, the Pope can speak ex cathedra by confirming and approving of the decisions of other tribunals, such as general or particular councils, or Roman Congregations. In ordinary cases, however, the approbation of a particular council is merely an act of supervision, and the decision of a Roman Congregation is not ex cathedra unless the Pope makes it his own.

SFD

 

[SFD]

Are you concerned that a belief in the happiness of Limbo (infantium, not patrum) perhaps has enticed some parents to fail to baptize their children promptly, because the parent figures the child will be happy if they die before baptism? Back in 1958, Limbo seems the likely culprit, whereas if it were written today, then Heaven would be the likely culprit. At least, that seems the case in the USA.

The Holy Office was concerned that “Such postponement draws support from certain opinions, devoid however of any solid foundation, regarding the eternal destiny of infants who die without baptism.”

Do you think the Holy Office was referring to limbo (infantium) here? Obviously not, as limbo was not “an opinion devoid of any solid foundation”.

SFD

 

[japhy]

Why can we both just read it? Do you want to be able to disagree with me instead of Pope Pius XII?

Back off, man. Maybe she wants to know how you are reading it because she doesn’t exactly know what it’s saying. You are being awfully militant about this.