When EXACTLY should we baptize our baby?
What does 'ASAP' mean in practice? Should we set a number of days or weeks which are appropriate to wait? Practical answers from Catholic authorities.
Introduction
St Thérèse of Lisieux and her saintly mother Zélie
Baby Marie Françoise-Thérèse Martin—better known to us as St Thérèse of Lisieux—was born on Thursday, 2nd January 1873.
Mgr August Pierre Laveille, her biographer, provides an intriguing account of the saint’s baptism—and the anxiety of her saintly mother, Madame Zélie Martin:
Marie, the eldest sister, was chosen as godmother to the child. Her future godfather, Paul Albert Boul, son of one of M. Martin’s friends, although he lived in Alençon, caused some delay. Anxious on account of this delay, Mme Martin besought God that he would not allow her child to die without baptism.1
The canonization process contains the following testimony by Mère Agnès de Jésus (Pauline Martin):
Question: Do you know why they waited two days after her birth to baptise her?
Because they were waiting for her godfather. During this time, our pious mother was in a constant state of agony, regretting the delay and fearing that some harm might befall the child: she constantly imagined that the child was in danger. All her other children had been baptised the same day they were born.2
These passages may suggest a delay of weeks, or at least several days.
But in fact, the godfather was delayed simply in the sense that he could not come immediately. Laveille continues:
At last, on the afternoon of January 4, everything was in readiness for the great ceremony, and the whole family set out for the church of Notre-Dame […]
The Sacrament of Baptism was conferred by Abbé Lucien-Victor Dumaine, a priest of the parish and personal friend of the Martin family.3
In other words, the anxiety of the saintly Zélie Martin seems to have been based on the prospect of waiting a couple of days.
St Thérèse’s sister Celine (Sister Genévieve) also spoke of this at the canonization process:
The Servant of God was baptised in Alençon, in the church of Notre Dame, on 4 January 1873, 36 hours after her birth. Although this delay was not very long, it was very painful for our mother.4
Nor was the baptism on the 4th a surprise shortening of an expected longer delay: the godfather had been away on Friday 3rd; it was specifically waiting 36 hours until Saturday 4th that caused this holy woman such anxiety. St Thérèse’s sister Celine (Sister Genévieve) also spoke of this at the process.5
The practice of the Martin family was to baptize each infant on the day they were born (or in the morning, if they were born at night).6
It might be tempting to dismiss Zélie Martin’s anxiety as excessive, and motivated by the loss of four of her nine children. These four were:
Marie Hélène, at just under 4 years of age
Joseph Louis, at 5 months
Joseph Jean-Baptise at 8 months
Marie Mélanie-Thérèse at less than 2 months.
No doubt these deaths played a part in her eagerness—although we should note that none of her children died within the first few days after birth.
However, it seems more becoming, when considering the actions of a saintly woman like Zélie Martin, to note that her and M. Louis Martin’s promptness with baptism is entirely in keeping with the Catholic sense—noted even by early fathers like St Augustine—and that further, their promptness ensured that their four deceased children were saints in heaven, enjoying eternal bliss, before St Thérèse herself was even born.
But all this gives rise to an important practical question facing every parent—to which we have compiled a large number of texts from Catholic authorities in reply.
What does ASAP really mean?
In a previous piece, we provided a text from Fr Michael Müller on why infants should be baptized “as soon as possible,” along with our comments refuting some of the arguments used to justify delays.
But what does “as soon as possible” mean?
It does not mean “sooner than is reasonably possible”
It does not mean “some time after it is possible”
It means what it says: “as soon as possible.” This may not be a length of time that can be quantified in numerical terms, nor does it need to be quantified. When one pauses and thinks, there is no ambiguity in the phrase “as soon as possible.”
One knows at what point it is possible to have one’s infant baptized. It may not be possible to take an infant a long distance to church, even in a car; this may give rise to a justified delay. But it is possible to baptize an infant in the absence of extended family, or without a relative who is a priest, and even in some circumstances without the mother present.
Some moralists have given an estimate range of dates after which, absent a reasonable cause, delaying baptism constitutes a grave sin. It is easy to see these numbers, and overlook the fact that they are the opposite of an ideal target for when one should have an infant baptized. An infant should not be baptized as soon as it is possible to do so, not as soon as it is no longer possible not to do so; nor as soon as it waiting any longer would be sinful.
What unjustified delays imply
It seems clear from the texts below that there has been a long-standing tendency on the part of some to delay the baptism of their children—sometimes for justified causes, and sometimes for unjustified causes.
On the doctrinal level, the unjustified delay of baptism seems to represent a practical denial of the Church’s teaching on the necessity of baptism for the salvation of infants. This in turn implicitly denies one or more of the following truths:
That Heaven is an essentially supernatural reward, which is above our natural capacities and what is due to us
That achieving an essentially supernatural end requires supernatural means
The necessity of supernatural faith, hope and charity for salvation, which are only given to infants through a valid baptism.
Some might try to evade this by suggesting that God may enlighten the minds of unbaptized infants before death and grant them an immediate revelation, so that they may make supernatural acts of faith, hope and charity, and so be saved. But while this is not theoretically impossible, it is totally gratuitous.
It also implies that the intention of the parents to baptize is sufficient in order for an infant to be saved and attain their supernatural end—an idea which has been consistently rejected by the Church.
On the practical level, it seems to entail two false presumptions:
Historic calls for infants to be baptized as soon as possible do not apply today, because they were based on high rates of infant mortality, which have now decreased
Danger to an infant’s life will allow enough time for parents or caregivers to baptize before it is too late.
We addressed these false presumptions in the notes elsewhere. In addition, we could also add that Catholic authorities—as seen below—by no means restrict their reasoning to the possibility of an infant dying without baptism. For example, Fr de Aldama et al. note the following:
[F]or the children of Catholics, baptism should not be delayed because of their age, because it is not right that they should be deprived of the good effects of baptism; for thus it comes about that they increase gradually, even without sense perception, in faith, with the help of grace, with their own supernatural merits even from the first moment in which they can merit.7
We are born the prisoners of Satan; baptism frees our infants from this state, cleanses them from original sin and puts them in a state of grace, makes them Christians, makes them adopted children of God, and members of the Church. All this makes up a great good which brings glory to God, allowing the baptized soul to say with Our Lady: “My soul doth magnify the Lord.”
We addressed similar arguments here:
Finally, it may be tempting to think that a celebration is necessary in order to convey the importance of baptism to one’s other children or to the extended family, and that accompanying delays to the baptism itself are thereby justified. But such an attempt to convey the importance of baptism will be utterly thwarted if it entails delaying the sacrament longer than is justified or necessary.
This piece consists of a number of texts from the magisterium, saints, moralists, canonists, theologians and spiritual writers on this topic—showing both the historic eagerness of parents and the Church to have infants baptized, as well as the Church’s response to the tendency to delay baptism for unjustified reasons.
Two recent magisterial texts
Monitum of the Holy Office, February 1958
The custom has prevailed in some places of deferring the conferral of baptism on contrived reasons of convenience or of a liturgical nature. In support of this delay are certain opinions, lacking indeed a solid foundation, concerning the eternal fate of infants who die without baptism.
Therefore, this Supreme Sacred Congregation, with the approval of the Supreme Pontiff, warns the Christian faithful that infants should be baptized as soon as possible, according to the provisions of canon 770. It exhorts pastors, however, and preachers to urge the accomplishment of this obligation.
Given at Rome, from the House of the Holy Office, on February 18, 1958.
Arcturus de Jorio, Notary.8
Leo XIII: Letter Gratae Vehementer, July 22, 1899
Venerable Brethren, your Letter bearing the date of last March and these you utter be ring toe people your people under the title “Mali e Rimedi”, has caused Us great joy.
With pastoral zeal and paternal affection you deplore the now well-known abuse which postpones the administration of holy Baptism of infants for weeks, months, nay even for years, and you have done all in your power to banish this abuse from the diocese confided to your care.
In truth, there is nothing worse than this evil custom, nothing more contrary to ecclesiastical laws, because not only does it, with unforgivable audacity, put in evident danger the eternal salvation of many souls, but still more it undoubtedly deprives them in this period of waiting of the ineffable gifts of sanctifying grace which are infused by the waters of regeneration. Consequently, what has been omitted in its time may never be accomplished afterwards.
Venerable Brethren, you must spontaneously devote all your energy and strength to concluding successfully the enterprise you have begun. We cannot but reproach and condemn this abuse with all Our might as detestable in God's sight as in man’s in whatever place it might be unhappily implanted.
(Blessing.)9
From: Papal Teachings, The Liturgy.
Recent Canonists, Moralists and Theologians
1917 Code of Canon Law
Can. 770: Infants should be baptized as soon as possible; pastors and preachers should frequently stress with the faithful the gravity of their obligation.
(Infantes quamprimum baptizentur; et parochi ac concionatores frequenter fideles de hac gravi eorum obligatione commoneant.)10
Wernz-Vidal, 1934
As regards the time when private baptism is conferred by urgent necessity, it must be administered at any time defined by the necessity itself, infants must be baptized as soon as possible, and it is the duty of pastors and preachers to frequently remind the faithful of this grave obligation of theirs; but they are not baptized as soon as possible, unless baptism is conferred within three or at least eight days from the birth.11
Dom. Chas. Augustine OSB, 1918
The first of these two canons (Can. 770) confirms the old practice of having infants baptized as soon as possible. To admonish the faithful of their grave obligation to comply with this law is the office of pastors and preachers.
Private baptism, according to can. 771, in case of urgent necessity may be administered at any time and in any place.
The reason for the important law embodied in can. 770 is the necessity of Baptism for eternal salvation. Leo XIII justly called the practice of delaying Baptism a detestable and impious abuse.*
An instruction of the Holy Office enjoined the Coptic missionaries to tell mothers that they are guilty of cruelty to their offspring if they delay Baptism for fear of temporal death while exposing them to eternal death.* The term quamprimum, as soon as possible, is assumed to signify three, or, at most, eight days from the birth of the child.*
An urgens necessitas [justifying private baptism] would exist, e.g.:
If the distance from church were great,* say more than three leagues [around nine miles];
If the parents stubbornly objected to having the child brought to church.
In these and similar cases private baptism without ceremonies and rites may be administered, but the latter must be supplied when the parents give their consent or the child can be brought to church.* When a child is so feeble that there is danger of death, the midwife may baptize him, provided the danger is quite positive.*12
Merkelbach, 1962
148. Principle II. The Children of the Faithful Should Be Baptised as Soon as Possible—The command to baptise them is of divine law (n. 133); baptising them as soon as possible, if not of divine law, is at least an ecclesiastical obligation by custom (canon 770).
This principle is established by Pope Siricius (384–398), in his letter to Himerius:
“It is advised that sacred Baptism should not be delayed for forty or eighty days or any other period according to certain practices, but rather should be administered as soon as it can reasonably be done.”
This is confirmed by the Council of Florence in its decree for the Jacobites, by the Council of Trent (session 7, canon 12) anathematising the Baptists who declared “no one should be baptised except at the point of death,” as well as by the Roman Ritual (title II, chapter I, n. 39); by Benedict XIV in Constitution Omnium sollicitudinum (12 September 1744); by the Sacred Congregation (2 January 1899); and by Pope Leo XIII (letter, 13 August 1899), who most strongly condemns the custom of delaying infant Baptism, stating that:
“[N]othing... could be more unjust, nothing more contrary to ecclesiastical sanctions… We reject and denounce this detestable practice, irreverent toward God and inhumane toward men, wherever it may have unhappily prevailed.”
St. Thomas gives the reasoning:
“If children are to be baptised, Baptism should not be delayed: (1) because there is no need to wait for greater instruction or even fuller conversion in them; (2) due to the risk of death, as no other remedy can assist them except through the sacrament of Baptism” (Summa Theologica, a. 3).
From this it is evident that Baptism should be conferred on infants as soon as it is morally, that is, reasonably, possible, such as within three days; and that it is a grave sin to delay it for an extended period. Therefore, parents gravely sin if, without just cause, they negligently postpone the Baptism of their children for a significant time, such as a month or perhaps even 10-15 days; and also for a shorter time if the infant is at risk, if scandal might result, or if there is a particular precept in their region or diocese.
Thus:
“Infants are to be baptised as soon as possible, and pastors and preachers should frequently remind the faithful of this grave obligation” (canon 770).
It cannot be upheld, as some, including Ballerini, Genicot, and Noldin, have maintained—namely, that even a notable delay of Baptism is not a grave sin where there is no fear of danger of death. This, namely, is not in accordance with the words of the Ritual, the Code, and Leo XIII. Thus, in the latest editions of Noldin’s work, this was corrected by Fr. Schmitt.13
McHugh & Callan, 1958
2689. Duties of Parents and Guardians in Reference to Baptism.
(a) As to Administration of Baptism—Parents are obliged under grave sin not to expose their children to the loss of salvation by undue delay of Baptism (see 2344, 2630). If there is danger of death, a child must be baptized at once; if there is no immediate danger of death, the child must nevertheless, on account of the absolute necessity of Baptism, be baptized as soon as possible. Some moralists consider a needless delay gravely sinful if it exceeds three or four days; others, if it exceeds ten or eleven days.14
From: Moral Theology—A Complete Course Based on St. Thomas Aquinas and the Best Modern Authorities
Joseph A. de Aldama SJ et al., 1956
[F]or the children of Catholics, baptism should not be delayed because of their age, because it is not right that they should be deprived of the good effects of baptism; for thus it comes about that they increase gradually, even without sense perception, in faith, with the help of grace, with their own supernatural merits even from the first moment in which they can merit.
Parents are obliged to have their children baptized as soon as possible, although it is not binding under grave sin, unless there is an imminent danger of death.15
Prümmer, 1955—citing Pope Leo XIII and St Alphonsus Liguori
The infants of Catholic parents are to be baptised as soon as possible. The Code of Canon Law (c. 770) accordingly prescribes:
“Infants are to be baptised as soon as possible, and pastors and preachers should frequently remind the faithful of this grave obligation.”
The reason is that the lives of infants are so fragile that death could easily and very quickly occur, and, in that event, the gates of Heaven would remain closed to them for all eternity. Hence, Pope Leo XIII strongly condemns the practice of delaying infant baptism:
“Nothing could be more unjust than this harmful custom, nor more opposed to ecclesiastical sanctions; it not only places the eternal salvation of so many souls in manifest peril by inexcusable recklessness, but moreover, within that time, deprives them of the ineffable graces of sanctifying grace, which are bestowed through the washing of regeneration... We cannot but utterly reject and denounce this detestable practice, which is both irreverent towards God and inhumane towards men, wherever it may have unhappily prevailed.”*
According to universal law, there is no specific timeframe established within which infants must be baptised under pain of grave sin. However, under particular law, it is frequently prescribed that baptism should not be delayed beyond one or two weeks.
Theologians debate what length of delay in baptising infants constitutes grave sin. Where a specific law exists on this matter, it must be observed, and violations should be judged according to the legislator’s intention. If, however, no such specific law exists (excluding cases where there is a risk of public scandal or danger of death for the infant), it is practically impossible to determine precisely what delay would constitute mortal sin. St. Alphonsus writes on this matter:
“Palaus, following Suarez, considers a delay beyond one month to be serious if no reason exists; if a reason does exist, he considers two months to be serious. Laymann has a similar view... The Salamanca theologians, however, think that delaying for less than fifteen or twenty days, even without an urgent reason, is not mortally sinful. Juénin, on the other hand, consistent with his usual severity of conscience, argues that baptism should not be delayed beyond one or two days. Tournely considers that the delay should not extend beyond five or six days... but the more common and probable opinion of Sotus, Leander, and Ledesma, cited by Concina and Roncaglia, is that a delay is not serious unless it exceeds ten or eleven days.”*
Given this wide range of opinions, which clearly demonstrates the impossibility of a definitive answer to this question, pastors and confessors should urgently exhort parents not to delay their child’s baptism beyond three days without a very serious reason.*16
Other Magisterial Texts (inc. two catechisms)
As with the 1958 Monitum and the text of Pope Leo XIII already cited, the magisterial texts tend to limit themselves to the general principle, that infants should be baptised as soon as possible, without delays.
This is because (as discussed) infants should be baptised as soon as possible. Dioceses would often set local laws for the timeframe, but any suggested window of times from Rome would naturally prompt some to delay to the end of the given window. The magisterial texts are not interested in facilitating this.
Some such estimates are indeed given by moral theologians—as well as estimates for when delays become venially and then mortally sinful.
Catechism of Pope St Pius X
11. When should infants be brought to the Church to be baptised?
A. Infants should be brought to the Church to be baptised as soon as possible.12. Why such anxiety to have infants receive Baptism?
A. There should be the greatest anxiety to have infants baptised because, on account of their tender age, they are exposed to many dangers of death, and cannot be saved without Baptism.13. Do parents sin, then, who, through negligence, allow their children to die without Baptism, or who defer it?
A. Yes, fathers and mothers who, through negligence, allow their children to die without Baptism sin grievously, because they deprive their children of eternal life; and they also sin grievously by putting off Baptism for a long time, because they expose them to danger of dying without having received it.17
The Catechism of the Council of Trent (The Roman Catechism)
Baptism Of Infants Should Not Be Delayed
The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted to take care that their children be brought to the church, as soon as it can be done with safety, to receive solemn Baptism.
Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace of the Sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death.18
The Council of Florence—Bull Cantate Domino, Decree for the Jacobites
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, she 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 layman or woman in the form of the Church, if there is no priest, as is contained more fully in the decree on the Armenians.19
From: Denzinger
Pope St Siricius, Letter Directa ad decessorem to Bishop Himerius of Tarragona, February 10, 385
Just as We say, then, that the sacred reverence due to Easter is in no respect to be reduced, [as the time for public baptism] so we wish that aid be brought with all swiftness to infants who, because of their age, are not yet able to speak as well as to those who require the water of sacred baptism in any necessity whatsoever, so that it may not redound to the loss of our soul if, after those who desired it are denied the font of salvation, one (of them), when he departs this world, loses both his life and the kingdom (of heaven).
Let anyone, likewise, who is in danger of shipwreck, the attack of an enemy, the uncertainty of a siege, or the hopelessness of some bodily illness and who requests that help be provided him by the incomparable aid of the faith obtain the reward of a speedy rebirth at the very moment when he requests it.
The error made in this respect up to this point should be enough; from now on, let all priests hold to the aforesaid rule if they do not wish to be torn from the firmness of the apostolic rock upon which Christ has built his whole Church.20
From: Denzinger
Of the above, Leeming writes: “This Decretum entered the Common Law of the Church and was cited regularly throughout the Middle Ages.”21
Fathers, Doctors and Saints
There is a very great deal of evidence from the Fathers, Doctors and the Saints for:
The necessity of baptism for the salvation of infants
The existence of Limbo as the state of those who are not baptized
The need to baptize as soon as possible.
Typically, they do not specify timeframes: what needs is there to do so when they have made clear that without baptism, an infant will not attain the supernatural beatitude of Heaven?
However, what follows are a few examples of such authorities talking specifically about timeframes.
St Alphonsus Liguori, 1696-1787
Those who delay baptising an infant for a considerable time sin gravely. This is universally accepted, based on various provincial councils that decreed children should be baptised as soon as possible. The Rituale Romanum states:
“The parish priest should urge that this most necessary sacrament not be excessively delayed for children, given the risk to their salvation.”
As to what length of delay is considered serious, Palaus, following Suarez, holds that a delay beyond a month is serious if there is no reason, and two months if there is a reason (p. 8, n. 4). Laymann has a similar view, saying:
“Ordinarily, no necessity presses, even if one or one and a half months are to be awaited, so that Baptism may be conferred with due solemnity on the infant, though a delay should only occur for a serious reason.” (c. 6, n. 9)
The Salmanticenses conclude that it is not mortally sinful to delay less than 15 or 20 days, even without an urgent reason (De Baptismo c. 5, p. 2, n. 12).
Juénin, however, in his customary manner of strictness, states that Baptism should not be delayed beyond a day or two. Conversely, Tournely holds that the delay should not extend beyond five or six days (loc. cit. v. Quaer. 4). Petrocorensis considers a serious delay to be one exceeding eight days (t. 5, p. 212, q. 13).
But the more common and probable view of Sotus, Leander, and Ledesma, cited by Concina (t. 8, p. 167, n. 19), and by Roncaglia (q. 3, r. 2), is that a delay is not serious unless it exceeds 10 or 11 days.22
St John-Marie Vianney, 1786-1859
Catechesis, Exhortations and Sermons: The Duties of the Pregnant Woman (Sermon n. 26)
Never let more than twenty-four hours pass without baptising your children; if you fail to do so, you are guilty, unless you have serious reasons.23
St Thomas Aquinas, 1225-1274
On the contrary, It is written (Sirach 5:8): “Delay not to be converted to the Lord, and defer it not from day to day.” But the perfect conversion to God is of those who are regenerated in Christ by Baptism. Therefore Baptism should not be deferred from day to day.
I answer that, In this matter we must make a distinction and see whether those who are to be baptized are children or adults. For if they be children, Baptism should not be deferred. First, because in them we do not look for better instruction or fuller conversion. Secondly, because of the danger of death, for no other remedy is available for them besides the sacrament of Baptism.24
From: Summa Theologica III
St Robert Bellarmine, 1542-1621
We, however, begin to need Baptism as soon as we are born, nor are we certain in regard to the time of our life, and then we are not baptized to begin in the world, but lest we would perish forever. Additionally, Christ was circumcised in infancy; what circumcision was for the Jews, Baptism is for us.25
From: On the Sacraments in General (in Two Books) & On Baptism and Confirmation
St Augustine—Letter to St Jerome (A.D. 415)
[W]ho could bear to think that those who run with their infant children to have them baptized, are prompted to do so by a regard for their bodies, not for their souls?
The blessed Cyprian, indeed, said, in order to correct those who thought that an infant should not be baptized before the eighth day, that it was not the body but the soul which behooved to be saved from perdition—in which statement he was not inventing any new doctrine, but preserving the firmly established faith of the Church; and he, along with some of his colleagues in the episcopal office, held that a child may be properly baptized immediately after its birth.26
St Augustine repeated this again and again, and it was a common theme of his preaching on the topic. According to Leeming: “He appeals again and again to the fact that Christian parents hurried to have their babies baptized and were fearful lest they die without Baptism: parvuli suorum curantium pio timore portantur.”27
St Cyprian of Carthage—Letter to Fidus (Epistle 58)
[I]n respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day, we all thought very differently in our council.
For in this course which you thought was to be taken, no one agreed; but we all rather judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to any one born of man. For as the Lord says in His Gospel, The Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them (Luke 4:56), as far as we Can, We must strive that, if possible, no soul be lost. For what is wanting to him who has once been formed in the womb by the hand of God? To us, indeed, and to our eyes, according to the worldly course of days, they who are born appear to receive an increase. But whatever things are made by God, are completed by the majesty and work of God their Maker. […]
[W]ith respect to what you say, that the aspect of an infant in the first days after its birth is not pure, so that any one of us would still shudder at kissing it, we do not think that this ought to be alleged as any impediment to heavenly grace. For it is written, To the pure all things are pure (Titus 1:15). Nor ought any of us to shudder at that which God has condescended to make. For although the infant is still fresh from its birth, yet it is not such that any one should shudder at kissing it in giving grace and in making peace; since in the kiss of an infant every one of us ought for his very religion’s sake, to consider the still recent hands of God themselves, which in some sort we are kissing, in the man lately formed and freshly born, when we are embracing that which God has made. […]
[I]f even to the greatest sinners, and to those who had sinned much against God, when they subsequently believed, remission of sins is granted—and nobody is hindered from baptism and from grace—how much rather ought we to shrink from hindering an infant, who, being lately born, has not sinned, except in that, being born after the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death at its earliest birth, who approaches the more easily on this very account to the reception of the forgiveness of sins— that to him are remitted, not his own sins, but the sins of another.
And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism and from the grace of God, who is merciful and kind and loving to all. Which, since it is to be observed and maintained in respect of all, we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons, who on this very account deserve more from our help and from the divine mercy, that immediately, on the very beginning of their birth, lamenting and weeping, they do nothing else but entreat. We bid you, dearest brother, ever heartily farewell.28
Cardinal Gibbons discusses this Council—and the necessity of infant baptism—here:
Popular Texts for the Laity
Sheehan, 1950
Note: Because of the absolute necessity of Baptism, the Church has made a law requiring that all infants should be baptized “ as soon as possible”;(fn. 20) her command imposes a grave obligation on parents and guardians.
Fn. 20: “C.C.L., [Can.] 770. The phrase ‘as soon as possible’ is generally interpreted to mean, ‘within a few days.’”29
Very Rev. Ferreol Girardey, CSSR, 1895
What Parents owe to the Souls of their Children.
You should have your children baptized as soon as possible after their birth, i.e., before they are a week old, or, in dangerous climates, before they are a month old. It is advisable to call in the services of a conscientious Catholic physician and of a good and well-instructed Catholic midwife, so as to secure for the little ones in case of danger the rites of baptism and the right to heavenly joys.30
James Cardinal Gibbons, 1876
In his classic work The Faith of Our Fathers, Gibbons explains the necessity of baptism for all men, referring specifically to the Council of Carthage and it being a matter of days, rather than weeks. He adds:
From what has been said you may well judge how reprehensible is the conduct of Catholic parents who neglect to have their children baptized at the earliest possible moment, thereby risking their own souls, as well as the souls of their innocent offspring. How different was the practice of the early Christians, who, as St. Augustine testifies, hastened with their new-born babes to the baptismal font that they might not be deprived of the grace of regeneration.
If an infant is sick, no expense is spared that its life may be preserved. The physician is called in, medicine is given to it, and the mother will spend sleepless nights watching every movement of the infant; she will sacrifice her repose, her health; nay, she will expose even her own life that the life of her offspring may be saved. And yet the supernatural happiness of the child is too often imperiled without remorse by the criminal postponement of Baptism.
But if they are to be censured who are slow in having their children baptized, what are we to think of that large body of professing Christians who, on principle, deny Baptism to little ones till they come to the age of discretion? What are we to think of those who set their private opinions above Scripture, the early Fathers of the Church and the universal practice of Christendom?
We may smile indeed at a theological opinion, no matter how novel or erroneous it may be, so long as it does not involve any dangerous consequences. But when it is given in a case of life and death, how terrible is the responsibility of those who propagate doctrines so erroneous!
See here for the full text:
Fr Michael Müller, 1825-1899
The whole tenor of his chapter is about baptizing the infant as soon as possible:
By contrast, ‘The Conciliar/Synodal Church’ teaches…
In the 1983 Code of Canon Law, we find the following:
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 New Commentary on the [1983] Code of Law explains this canon, its history, and how it marks a departure from the previous understanding:
Canons 867-868 present the prerequisites for lawful infant baptism. Canon 867 treats the appropriate length of time between an infant's birth and his or her baptism; canon 868 states what is required of parents for the licit celebration of their children's baptism. The canons require nothing of the infants themselves. Like canons 865-866, these canons distinguish between baptism in ordinary and in extraordinary circumstances.
The time for celebrating infant baptism has varied throughout history. In the ancient Church, infant baptism was celebrated in conjunction with adult initiation, primarily on Easter and Pentecost. During the Dark and Middle Ages, the precariousness of life led to the increasing practice of baptizing infants as soon as possible after birth.
This practice was mandated by the Council of Florence, [Footnote: “Canon 686, §1 of the Eastern code calls for baptism to be celebrated as soon as possible "according to legitimate custom.”] which decreed that infants are to be baptized as soon as possible (quamprimum), either immediately after birth or in the first month of life. This was the practice reflected in the 1917 code, which left the determination of the exact meaning of quamprimum to particular law.
In the United States, the Plenary Council of Baltimore interpreted quamprimum to mean ‘at once.’ Thus, it was not uncommon for mothers not to be present for the baptism of their own children. The present law reflects a middle ground between these two traditions. Canon 867 does not use the word quamprimum to determine the appropriate time for infant baptism but calls for baptism during “the first few weeks” of an infant's life. The following canon will call for a greater interval between birth and baptism if the parents’ lack of faith leaves no hope that the infant will be brought up in the practice of the faith.
NB: In light of the above, the following paragraph from the same work is truly shocking:
Canon 856 sees the Easter Vigil as the privileged time for baptism of both adults and infants and recalls that this was the time for infant baptism in the ancient Tradition of the Church. The change in discipline reflects the postconciliar theology of baptism summarized in canon 849. Since popular piety may still think of the baptism of infants only in terms of the removal of original sin and insurance against limbo, the sense of urgency is shifted from the baptism itself to the catechesis of the infant’s parents or guardians and their formation for raising their child in the faith. It is this catechesis and formation that are to occur quamprimum after the infant's birth or even before it. The necessity of this preparation is the reason for the code's greater flexibility regarding the time when an infant is to be baptized.
Besides the need for time to provide proper preparation to the parents, the Rite mentions other reasons for an interval between an infant's birth and his or her baptism: the welfare of the child, the health of the mother, and the time needed to plan the ceremony. The Rite also authorizes episcopal conferences '“to determine a longer interval between birth and baptism.”31
“The first few weeks” is too long.
Do not delay.
Baptize your baby ASAP.
N.B.: All this applies to the baptism of infants who are to be raised in the Catholic Church. Baptism imposes a set of rights and duties on a person for which they will only be adequately prepared within the Catholic Church. For this reason, outside of danger of death, it is not right for infants to be baptized against the consent of the parents, or if their Catholic education cannot be reasonably foreseen.
Here are the relevant canons:
Can. 750: § 1. The infant of infidels, even over the objections of the parents, is licitly baptized when life is so threatened that it is prudently foreseen that death will result before the infant attains the use of reason. is licitly baptized if:
§ 2. Outside of danger of death, provided provision is made for Catholic education, [an infant]
1.° If the parents or guardians, or at least one of them, consents;
2.° If the parents, that is, father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, or guardians are no more, or have lost their rights over [the infant] or cannot in any way exercise it.
Can. 751: Generally the norms specified in the above canons are to be observed whenever it is a case of the baptism of the infant of two heretics or schismatics, or of two Catholics who have fallen into apostasy, heresy, or schism.
THE END
HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE!
As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.
Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.
A subscription from you helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all. Plus, you will get access to our exclusive members-only material.
(We make our members-only material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)
Subscribe now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!
Read Next:
Follow on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:
August Pierre Laveille, St Thérèse de l’Enfant Jésus (published now as The Life of St Thérèse of Lisieux), p 26. Trans. Rev. M. Fitzimons, OMI, Benziger Bros, New York, 1928. Available at Archive.org
Ibid., pp 26-7
Joseph A. Aldama et a., Sacrae Theologiae Summa IVA, Treatise II, On the Sacraments of Christian Initiation or on the Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation, n. 88
Mos alicubi invaluit differendi collationem baptismatis ob confictas rationes vel commoditatis vel indolis liturgicae. Cui dilationi favere queunt nonnullae sententiae, solido quidem fundamento carentes, de sorte aeterna infantium sine baptismate decedentium.
Quare haec Suprema Sacra Congregatio, Summo Pontifice adprobante, christifideles monet infantes quamprimum baptizandos esse iuxta praescriptum canonis 770. Parochos autem et concionatores hortatur ut huius obligationis exsecutionem urgeant.
Datum Roma, ex Aedibus S. Officii, die 18 Februarii anni 1958.
Arcturus de Jorio, Notarius. AAS 1958, p 114
Papal Teachings, The Liturgy, p 153, n. 179
The 1917 or Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law, in English Translation with Extensive Scholarly Apparatus, trans. Dr Edward Peters, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2001
“43. Tempus quod attinet, baptismus privatus, urgente necessitate conferendus, quovis tempore administrari debet ipsa necessitate definito, infantes quamprimum baptizari debent, et parochi ac concionatorum est, frequenter fideles de hac gravi eorum obligatione commonere; quamprimum autem non baptizantur, nisi intra tres vel saltem octo dies a nativitate baptismus conferatur (68).”
fn. 68:
Tertullianus, De bapt. C. 19; Conc. Gerundense (a. 517); c. 3, Conc. Matison. II (a. 585); c. 18, Conc. Antissiod. (a. 590) ; c. 11, 12, 18, D. IV de consecr. (Gelas. I, a. 494) ; Kraus l.c.v. Taufe n. 2 ; Collect. Lac. V. Baptismus ; Conc. Plen. Amr. Lat. (a. 1899) n. 499 ; Synod Sciarf. (a. 1888) p. 72
Francisco Xav. Wernz SJ, Petri Vidal SJ, Ius Canonicum, Tomus IV De Rebus, Vol. I, Sacramenta, Sacramentalia, Cultus divinus, Coemeteria et Sepultural ecclesiastica, n. 43, p. 48. Gregorian University, Rome, 1934.
Dom Chas. Augustine OSB, A Commentary On The New Code Of Canon Law, Volume 4: Book 3. De rebus, or administrative law. v. 4. On the sacraments (except matrimony) and sacramental (Can. 726-1011, 1144-1153), pp 85-86. B. Herder Book Co., St Louis, MO, 1918.
Footnotes:
[1] “Gratae,” July 22, 1899 (Coll. P.F., n. 2060)
[2] S.O., June 14, 1741 (Coll., n. 326)
[3] S.C.P.F., Sept 11, 1841 (Coll., n. 939)
[4] S.C.P.F., Nov. 28, 1785 (Coll., n. 582).
[5] S.C.P.F., Aug 30, 1775 (Coll., n. 510)
[6] S.C.P.F., Sept. 11, 1779; S.O., Jan. 11, 1899 (Coll., nn 537, 2033).
Benedictus Henricus Merkelbach OP, Summa Theologiae Moralis ad Mentem D. Thomae et ad Normam Iuris Novi, Vol III, pp 122-3. Desclée de Brouwer, Brugis, Belgium, 1962.
John A. McHugh OP & Charles J. Callan OP, Moral Theology - A Complete Course Based on St. Thomas Aquinas and the Best Modern Authorities. Vol. II, n. 2689. B. Herder, London, 1958.
Joseph A. Aldama et a., Sacrae Theologiae Summa IVA, Treatise II, On the Sacraments of Christian Initiation or on the Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation, n. 88
Dominic Prümmer OP, Manuale Theologiae Moralis—Secondum Principia S. Thomae Aquinatis, Tomus III. n. 126. 1. Article I. On the Baptism of the Infants of Catholics and Non-Catholics. Translation by AI, checked by The WM Review. Here is the Latin:
ARTICULUS I. De baptizandis infantibus catholicorum et acatholicorum.
n. 126. 1. Infantes parentum catholicorum quam primum baptizandi sunt. 126 Hinc iubet Codex iur. can. c. 770: « Infantes quamprimum baptizentur et parochi ac concionatores frequenter fideles de hac gravi eorum obligatione commeneant. » Ratio est, quia vita infantium tam tenera est, ut facillime et citissime mors accidere possit, et tunc ianua coeli illis pro tota aeternitate remaneret clausa. Quapropter Leo XIII vehementissime reprobat consuetudinem differendi baptismum infantium: « Nil sane hac mala consuetudine iniquius, nil ecclesiasticis sanctionibus magis contrarium; utpote quae non solum tot animarum aeternam salutem inexcusabili temeritate in manifestum periculum infert, sed eas insuper intra id temporis certo fraudat ineffabilibus gratiae sanctificantis charismatibus, quae per regenerationis lavacrum infunduntur.... Non possumus, quin tam detestabilem usum, in Deum simul impium ac in homines, ubicumque infeliciter invaluerit, er animo improbemus et exsecremur." [152] Ex iure communi nullum tempus determinatum est, intra quod infantes sub gravi peccato baptizandi sunt; ex iure autem particulari non raro praescriptum est, ne infantium baptismus ultra unam alteramve hebdomadam differatur.
Quaenam dilatio baptismi infantium sit grave peccatum, disputant theologi. Sicubi exsistit lex particularis de hac re, observanda est eiusque transgressiones diiudicandae sunt iuxta mentem legislatoris; sin autem deest lex particularis (excluso gravi scandalo pro populo et periculo mortis pro infante), prorsus impossibile est accurate assignare, quaenam dilatio sit peccatum mortale. De hac re scribit S. Alphonsus [153]: « Palaus ex Suarez putat dilationem ultra mensem esse gravem, si non adsit causa; si vero adsit, esse gravem, duos menses. Fere idem sentit Laymann.... Salmanticenses autem censent non esse mortale minus differre quam ultra quindecim vel viginti dies etiam sine urgenti ratione. Juénin contra, iuxta morem suum arctandi conscientias usque ad extremum, dicit ultra unum vel alterum diem baptisma differri non debere. Tournely autem putat dilationem non esse extendendam ultra quinque vel sex dies..., sed communius et probabilius Sotus, Leander et Ledesma apud Concina ac Roncaglia dicunt non esse gravem dilationem, nisi decem vel undecim dies excedantur." In tanta sententiarum multitudine, quae clare demonstrat nihil certi ad hanc quaestionem responderi posse, parochi et confessarii adhortentur instantissime parentes, ne differant sine urgentissima causa baptismum prolis ultra triduum. [154]
152: Ep. ad episc. Anglonens. d. 22 Iulii 1899 (Collect. de Prop. Fide n. 2060).
153: Theol. Mor. L. 6, n. 118
154: Noldin (De sacr. n. 66) putat post Ballerini-Palmieri (Opus theol. IV, n. 745) et Génicot (Theol. mor. Il 146), dilationem etsi notabilem non esse arguendam gravis peccati, modo adsit seria voluntas non negligendi baptismi nec mortis periculum vere timendum sit. Quae quidem sententia videtur esse satis laxa et opposita verbis Leonis XIII supra citatis. In aliquibus tamen regionibus parentes excusantur a peccato mortali propter conscientiam erroneam, — De dilatione baptismi adultorum infra n 134 sermo erit.
Footnotes:
152: Pope Leo XIII, Epistle to the Bishops of England, 22 July 1899 (Collection of Propaganda Fide, n. 2060).
153: St Alphonsus Liguori, Theologia Moralis, L. 6, n. 118
154: Noldin (De sacramentis n. 66) agrees with Ballerini-Palmieri (Opus theologicum IV, n. 745) and Génicot (Theologia moralis II, 146) that, even if a notable delay occurs, it does not imply grave sin, provided there is a serious intention not to neglect baptism and no real fear of danger of death. This view appears rather lenient and contrary to the words of Leo XIII cited above. However, in some regions, parents are excused from mortal sin due to an erroneous conscience. — On the delay of adult baptism, see below n. 134.
The Catechism of Pope St Pius X, p 70. Instauratio Press, Gladysdale Victoria, Australia, 1993.
The Catechism of the Council of Trent, p 176. Trans. McHugh and Callan, Joseph F. Wagner, New York, 1923.
Henrici Denzinger, Compendium of Creeds, Definitions, and Declarations on Matters of Faith and Morals (DH), p 1442, n. 1349. Ed. Peter Hünermann, with Fastiggi and Nash, 43rd ed., Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2010.
DH n. 184, p 385.
Bernard Leeming, Principles of Sacramental Theology, p 75. The Newman Press, Westminster, Maryland, 1956.
St Alphonsus Liguori, Theologia Moralis, Liber 6. Tract. 2., De baptismo, Note 2, n. 118, pp 543-4. Available here.
Notandum II. quòd graviter peccant , qui per multum temporis differunt infantem baptizare. Id commune est apud omnes ex pluribus conciliis provincialibus, quæ decrevere pueros baptizandos quàm citò fieri potest , et in Rituali rom. dicitur : « Parochus hortetur, ne pueris sacramentum tantoperè necessarium nimium differatur cum periculo salutis. » Qualis autem reputetur dilatio gravis , Palaus p. 8. n. 4. ex Suar. etc. putat dilationem ultra mensem esse gravem, si non adsit causa si verò adsit, esse gravem duos menses. Ferè idem sentit Laym. c. 6. n. 9. dicens : « Nulla autem ordinarie necessitas urget, tametsi unum, aut sesquimensem expectandum sit, donec cum decenti solemnitate baptismus infanti conferri possit, quamquam dilatio nonnisi ex gravi causa fieri debet. » Salmant. autem ‘de bapt.’ c. 5. p. 2. n. 12. in fin. censent non esse mortale minùs differre quàm ultra 15 vel 20 dies, etiam sine urgenti ratione. Jueninus contrà, juxta morem suum arctandi conscientias usque ad extremum, dicit ultra unum vel alterum diem baptisma differri non debêre. Cont. autem Tourn. loc. cit. v. Quær. 4. putat dilationem non extendendam ultra quinque vel sex dies. Petrocorensis t. 5. pag. 212. quæst. 13. censet gravem dilationem excedentem octo dies. Sed com-muniùs et probabiliùs Sotus , Leander , et Ledes. apud Conc. t. 8. p. 167. n. 19. ac Ronc. q. 3. r. 2. dicunt non esse gra vem dilationem , nisi 10 vel 11 dies excedantur.
Sermon for 20th Sunday after Pentecost, from Les Sermons de Saint Jean Marie Vianney.
St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica III, Q68 A3
St Robert Bellarmine, De Controversiis, Tomus VI. From On the Sacraments in General (in Two Books) & On Baptism and Confirmation, p 363. Trans. Ryan Grant, Ed. Frances Thomas, Mediatrix Press , Post Falls ID, 2021.
St Augustine of Hippo, Letter 166, to Jerome, on the origin of the soul (A.D. 415). Translated by J.G. Cunningham. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 1. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1887.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. <http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102166.htm>.
Leeming, 72.
St Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 58. Translated by Robert Ernest Wallis. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1886.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. <http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050658.htm>.
Archbishop Sheehan, Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, p 144. M.H. Gill and Son, Dublin, 1950.
Very Rev. Ferreol Girardey, CSSR, Popular Instructions on Matrimony. Benziger Bros, New York, 1896.
New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, ed. Beal et al. pp 1054-5. Paulist Press, New York, 2000. https://archive.org/details/newcommentaryonc0000unse/mode/2up
If your child is in danger of death, you should do it immediately yourself. Then have the priest do all the other blessings only he can do at the first opportunity.
If you have a miscarriage or stillbirth, baptize the child conditionally. If there still is life at the cellular level the soul might still be present. Say "If you are alive I baptize thee...."
What are we to make the latest headline of the Vatican's reply to grandmother 'Olivia's' concern for her unbaptised granddaughter? Comparing the reply to what I have learned in these articles they seem to agree - it is never licit to baptise an infant without the parent's consent while both or one is alive and rational. What if the parents are indifferent?