"Conditional Baptism: Remarks on the Letter 'Sacerdos' to the Editor"

Conditional Baptism: Remarks on the Letter of “Sacerdos” to the Editor.

 

          My Dear Doctor:  I read in your last number the letter of the learned “Sacerdos.”  There is no doubt that, theoretically, he is right.  Practically, however, I believe you are right, and that he is wrong.  You will allow me to say I was pleased at your conduct, in simply inserting the letter without any answer.  It convinced me that you were mindful of your resolution, when the Review was revived, of waging no war within the pale of the Church, but only of defending her against the attacks of her enemies from without.  But as your Review is read by many of the clergy interested in the question at issue, I hope your correspondent will not take it amiss, if I state my reasons for asserting that he is practically wrong.

          Of course “Sacerdos” is theoretically right in denying that “all converts in our time have to be baptized conditionally” because there may be exceptions.  But in practice these exceptions are so exceedingly rare, as all the most experienced missioners will testify, that it can be said generally so, not universally.  “Adult converts in this country should be rebaptized under condition,” because in practice it will be found, that generally reasonable doubts remain as to the validity of their baptism.  To remove all doubt, and to satisfy one’s self of the validity of the baptism conferred years before by a Protestant minister or preacher, a thorough investigation should take place.  Now, I hold that in the generality of cases, where adults in this country are converted from Protestantism, a thorough investigation that will satisfy the conscience of a priest is practically impossible.  Everyone knows that the population of this country is extremely unsettled.   People come and go, and are forever shifting the scene, changing their place of abode.  You will meet very few converts who are now living where they were born and baptized, or who can refer you to the persons who witnessed, or the minister who performed, the baptism.  Moreover, experience proves that very often serious mistakes in administering this most necessary sacrament take place.  Even Catholic laymen and women, who know how essential this sacrament is, and who as a rule are in their childhood taught how to baptize, sometimes blunder in this country, when called on to baptize in case of necessity.  The writer can recall quite a number of such cases.  Now how can you satisfy yourself generally of the validity of a baptism performed by Protestants in this country?  How many are there, who certainly employ the proper form?  How many, who certainly have the intention of doing what the Church does?  And if there are some, can you make sure that he who administered baptism to your convert was one of them? (footnote: Even there is no certainty that water, as the neceeary materia, was employed.  Writing these very remarks in the presence of a distinguished priest, my old friend, he told me that, to his certain knowledge, after a careful examination, two Protestant ministers at the place where he resides, when baptizing never use water, but simply pronounce the words: I hereby declare the child baptized in the name of the father, etc.  Asked by this priest, why they do not apply water when baptizing, they answered, that Christ in the Gospel did not mention “water” but simply said: Baptize them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost.  This happened in Utica, Oneida County, N.Y., in our days, and these clergymen have even a reputation of learning and ability among their denomination.) 

          “Sacerdos” refers to the “Roman Catechism.”  He must remember that this Catechism was written at a time when nearly all the Protestant sects still believed in Christ, the incarnate Son of God, and had, when baptizing, the intention to do what the Church of Christ does.  Circumstances have changed very materially since then.  He also refers to the declarations or decrees of some Popes.  But I would remind him of the saying of St. Augustine about the Ante-Nicene Fathers: “Ita locuti sunt, vobis nondum existentibus.”  This is for us a practical question, how to proceed in America in this nineteenth century, which question has to be answered by those who know perfectly the practical circumstances of this country.

          Whether the opinion of Catharinus, to which “Sacerdos” also refers, can be considered tenable or not, the Sacrament of Baptism is so intimately connected with salvation, that no priest of tender conscience will in practice conform to it.  We feel sure that “Sacerdos” would not take on himself such a responsibility.  Therefore those who hold it necessary as a general rule, to baptize conditionally such as are received in the Church from Protestant sects, in this country, cannot be accused with fairness by “Sacerdos” of treating the Sacrament of Baptism with levity.  They, on the contrary, would maintain that they act in this way through reverence for the sacraments, lest baptism and the sacraments that follow should be exposed to the danger of nullity.

          That there is a real danger of nullity in the generality of cases, and not a mere possibility or a mere suspicion, experience has amply proved, not only in America, but even in Europe.  More than forty years ago the professors in the universities and seminaries of Germany, as the writer of these remarks heard it himself, advised their students to adopt it as  a general rule, to baptize under condition converts from Protestantism.  The writer remembers an instance which shows that even an Italian archbishop thought it necessary to do, in order to secure the validity of baptism, even when conferred in particular circumstances by Catholics.  It was related to him by the person to whom it happened, cardinal Spinola, now dead.  When he was born, the nurse supposed the child to be still-born, and laid it in a cradle as dead.  After some time a servant, closely observing the child, saw that it breathed, and hastily taking water she baptized it.  Whilst she was gone to tell the good news to the Marchesa, the mother, another servant-maid approached the cradle, and seeing the child breathing and not knowing what had been done, she too hurriedly baptized the child.  When the Archbishop of Genoa was informed of what had happened, he thought it unsafe to trust to the validity of a baptism administered in such a confused haste, and he himself baptized the child sub conditione. 

          Now, if after a baptism conferred by two Catholics the Archbishop did not rest satisfied because of the mentioned circumstances, what would he think of the baptism conferred by Protestants in America in our times?  Would he trust to the validity of their baptism?

          But I need not cite such instances to “Sacerdos.”  I appeal to his conscience.  If he himself were a convert, would he be satisfied with his baptism as conferred by Protestants in this country?  Especially would he not have been anxious, previous to his ordination, to make sure of his baptism, by being conditionally baptized by a Catholic priest.  Whether ordination follows or not, ordination cannot render lawful that which would be wrong without it.  For every human soul baptism is an essential condition of salvation, whether ordination follows or not.

          “Sacerdos” even seems to assert that the mere persuasion a convert has of his having been validly baptized, may be considered a sufficient proof of a valid baptism.  But his persuasion evidently is worth no more than the reasons for it, which, as shown in the generality of cases, are very insufficient.  Besides, experience proves that such persons, after having joined the Church for years, finally become unsettled in their mind, and ask, themselves, to be baptized conditionally.  In conclusion, the writer believes that, in making these remarks, he is personally in accord with making these remarks, he is personally in accord with “Sacerdos.”  A priest of his character and attainments will not be likely to make a mistake in practice, by omitting a conditional baptism where it ought to be administered.  We are only anxious to guard others from making that awful mistake.  This Review is read my many of the clergy, and it is more than probable that some might be induced to adopt a practice that might be disastrous to some and even many souls.  It was a maxim of the old Romans, whose right sense of justice was so much admired by St. Augustine: “Rather let ninety-nine guilty escape than one innocent man be punished.”   We apply this axiom rightly to the present discussion, and say: Better, by far, that ninety-nine should be conditionally baptized without evident necessity, than that one should go unbaptized where baptism was necessary.

     I remain, with highest regard,  Yours in Domino,  Alter Sacerdos.