| |
POSTREMO MENSE
INSTRUCTION OF POPE BENEDICT XIV
TO THE VICEREGENT OF THE CITY FEBRUARY 28, 1747 [excerpt] |
Primo (enim) expendetur, utrum invitis parentibus ac reluctantibus Hebraei infantes baptizari licite possint. Secundo, si hoc nefas esse dixerimus, an casus unquam contingat aliquis, in quo id fieri non modo possit, sed etiam liceat planeque deceat. Tertio, baptismum Hebraeis infantibus tunc impertitum, cum fas non sit, ratumne an vero irritum haberi debeat. Quarto, quid sit faciendum, cum infantes Hebraei afferuntur, ut baptizentur, aut compertum sit, eos iam fuisse sacro baptismate initiatos : demum, quomodo probari possit, eosdem aquis salutaribus iam lustratos fuisse.
|
The first point to be considered is whether Hebrew children can be lawfully baptized, if the parents are unwilling and reluctant. Secondly, if we say that this is unlawful, then we must consider whether any case might occur, in which this could not only be done, but would even be lawful and clearly fitting. Thirdly, we must consider whether the baptism bestowed on Hebrew children at a time when it is now lawful, should be considered valid or invalid. Fourthly, we must consider what must be done when Hebrew children are brought to be baptized, or when it is discovered that they have been admitted to sacred baptism; finally, how it can be proved that these same children have already been purified by the saving waters.
|
De primo primae partis capite si sermo sit, utrum nempe dissentientibus parentibus Hebraei infantes baptizari possint, aperte asserimus, hoc iam a S. Thoma tribus in locis definitum fuisse, nempe in Quodl. 2, a. 7; in (S. th.) IIa IIae, q. 10, a. 12, ubi ad examen revocans quaestionem in Quodlibetis propositam: << Utrum pueri Iudaeorum et aliorum infidelium sint invitis parentibus baptizandi >>, ita respondet: << Respondeo dicendum. quod maximam habet auctoritatem Ecclesiae consuetudo, quae semper est in omnibus aemulanda, etc. Hoc autem Ecclesiae usus nunquam habuit, quod Iudaeorum filii invitis parentibus baptizarentur . . . >>; atque ita ait in IIIa, q. 68, a. 10: << Respondeo dicendum, quod pueri infidelium filii . . . si nondum habent usum liberi arbitrii, secundum ius naturale sunt sub cura parentum, quamdiu ipsi sibi providere non possunt . . ., et ideo contra iustitiam naturalem esset, si tales pueri invitis parentibus baptizarentur; sicut etiam si aliquis habens usum rationis baptizaretur invitus. Esset etiam periculosum. . . . >>
|
If there is any discussion of the first chapter of the first part, whether Hebrew children can be baptized if the parents object, we openly assert that this has already been defined in three places by St. Thomas, namely, in Quodl. 2, a.7; in II-IIae, q. 10, a. 12, where, recalling for examination the question proposed in the Quodlibeta: "Whether the children of the Jews and of other unbelievers should be baptized against the will of the parents," he answered thus: "I reply that it must be said that the custom of the Church has great authority, which should always be followed in all things, etc. Moreover, the usage of the Church never held that the children of Jews should be baptized against their parents' wishes. . . . ," and in addition he says this in IIIa, q. 68, a. 10: "I reply that it must be said that children, sons of unbelievers . . . , if they do not yet have the use of free will, are, according to the natural law, under the care of their parents, as long as they cannot provide for themselves . . . , and, therefore, it would be against natural justice, if such children were baptized without the parents' consent; just as if someone having the use of reason should be baptized against his will. It would even be dangerous. . . ."
|
Scotus in IV Sent. dist. 4, q. 9, n. 2 et in quaestionibus relatis ad n. 2 censuit laudabiliter posse principem imperare, ut invitis etiam parentibus Hebraeorum atque infidelium infantuli baptizentur, dummodo id potissimum prudenter caveatur, ne iidem infantes a parentibus occidantur. . . . Praevaluit (tamen) in tribunalibus S. Thomae sententia . . . atque inter theologos canonumque peritos vulgatior est. . . .
|
Scotus in 4 Sent. dist. 4, q. 9, n. 2, and in questions related to n. 2, thought that a prince could laudably command that small children of Hebrews and unbelievers be baptized, even against the will of the parents, provided one could prudently see to it that these same children were not killed by the parents. . . . Nevertheless, the opinion of St. Thomas prevailed in courts . . . and is more widespread among theologians and those skilled in canon law.
|
Hoc igitur posito, quod nefas sit Hebraeorum infantes reluctante parentum arbitrio baptizare, nunc iuxta ordinem initio propositum descendere iam oportet ad alteram partem: an videlicet contingere umquam possit occasio aliqua, in qua id liceat et conveniat. . . .
|
Therefore, this having been established, that it is unlawful to baptize Hebrew children against the will of their parents, now, following the order proposed in the beginning, we must take up the second part: namely, whether any occasion could be ever occur in which that would be lawful and fitting.
|
. . . Cum id eveniat, ut ab aliquo Christiano Hebraeorum puer morti proximus reperiatur, rem opinor laudabilem Deoque gratam is certe efficiet, qui salutem puero aqua lustrali praebeat immortalem. . . .
|
. . . Since this may happen, that a child of Hebrew parentage be found by some Christian to be close to death, he will certainly perform a deed which I think is praiseworthy and pleasing to God, if he furnished the child with eternal salvation by purifying water.
|
Si item eveniret, ut puer aliquis Hebraeus proiectus esset atque a parentibus derelictus, communis omnium sententia est pluribus quoque confirmata iudiciis, eum baptizari oportere, reclamantibus etiam repetentibusque parentibus. . . .
|
If, likewise, it should happen that any Hebrew child has been cast out and abandoned by its parents, it is the common opinion of all and has also been confirmed by many decisions, that the child ought to be baptized, even if the parents protest against this and demand the child back.
|
Postquam casus magis obvios exposuimus, in quibus nostra haec regula prohibet, Hebraeorum infantes invitis parentibus baptizari, aliquas insuper declarationes addimus ad hanc regulam pertinentes, quarum haec prima est : si parentes desint, infantes vero alicujus Hebraei tutelae commissi fuerint, eos sine tutoris assensu licite baptizari nullo modo posse, cum omnis parentum potestas ad tutores pervenerit. . . . 15. Secunda est, si pater christianae militiae nomen daret iuberetque infantem filium baptizari; eum quidem vel matre Hebraea dissentiente baptizandum esse, cum filius non sub matris, sed sub patris potestate sit habendus. . . . 16. Tertia est: quamvis mater filios sui iuris non habeat, tamen ad Christi fidem si accedat et infantem offerat baptizandum, tametsi pater Hebraeus reclamet, eum nihilominus aqua baptismatis abluendum esse. . . . 17. Quarta est, quod si pro certo habeatur, parentum voluntatem esse infantium baptismati necessariam, quoniam sub appellatione parentum locum quoque habet paternus avus: . . . hinc necessario sequitur, ut, si avus paternus catholicam fidem amplexus sit ac nepotem ferat ad sacri lavacri fontem, quamvis mortuo iam patre mater Hebraea repugnet, tamen infans sit absque dubio baptizandus . . .
|
After we have explained the most obvious cases in which this rule of ours prohibits the baptizing of Hebrew children against the wishes of their parents, we add some other declarations pertaining to this rule, the first of which is this: If parents are lacking, but the infants have been entrusted to the guardianship of a Hebrew, they can in no way be lawfully baptized without the assent of the guardian, since all the authority of the parents has passed to the guardians. . . . 15. The second is this, if the father should enlist in the Christian militia and order his infant son to be baptized, he should be baptized, even though the Hebrew mother protests, since the child must be considered to be, not under the power of the mother, but under that of the father. . . . 16. The third is this, that although the mother does not have her children under her own right, nevertheless, if she belongs to the Christian faith and offers her child for baptism, although the Hebrew father protests, nevertheless, the child should be cleansed by the water of baptism. . . . 17. The fourth is that, if it is a certainty that the will of the parents is necessary for the baptism of children, since under the name of parent a paternal grandfather is also included . . ., then it necessarily follows that, if the paternal grandfather has embraced the Catholic faith and brings his grandchild to the font of saving water, although the mother objects, when the father is dead, nevertheless, the child should be baptized without hesitation.
|
Fictitia res non est, quod aliquando pater Hebraeus se velle catholicam religionem amplecti praedicet ac se ipsum filiosque infantes baptizandos offerat, postmodum vero sui se consilii poeniteat abnuatque filium baptizari. Id Mantuae evenit. . . . Res ad examen deducta est in Congregatione S. Officii, ac Pontifex die 24. Septembre a. 1699 statuit ea fieri, quae sequuntur: << Sanctissimus auditis votis Eminentissimorum decrevit, quod duo filii infantes, alter scilicet triennis, alter quinquennis baptizentur. Alii, nempe filius octo annorum et filia duodecim, collocentur in domo Catechumenorum, si ea Mantuae adsit, sin minus apud piam honestamque personam ad effectum explorandi ipsorum voluntatem eosque instruendi >>. . . .
|
It is not an imaginary case that sometimes a Hebrew father says that he wants to embrace the Catholic religion and presents himself and his infant sons to be baptized, but afterwards regrets his intention and refused to have his son baptized. This happened at Mantua. . . . The case was brought for examination in the Congregation of the Holy Office, and the Pope on the 24th day of September in the year 1699 decreed that action should be taken as follows: "His Holiness, having listened to the wishes of the Cardinals, decreed that two infant sons, one three years old, the other five, be baptized. The other children, namely a son of eight years and a daughter twelve, should be placed in the house of catechumens, if there is one at Mantua, but if not, at the home of a pious and honorable person for the purpose of finding out their will and of instructing them. . . ."
|
Sunt quoque aliqui infideles suos infantes Christianis offerre soliti, ut aquis salubribus abluantur, non tamen Christi ut stipendia mereantur, neque ut originalis culpa eorum ex anima deleatur: sed id faciunt indigna quadam superstitione ducti, quod nempe baptismi beneficio existimant eosdem a malignis spiritibus, a foetore aut morbo aliquo liberandos. . . .
|
Also some unbelievers are accustomed to bring their children to Christians to be washed with the saving waters, not however that they may merit the satisfactions of Christ, nor that the guilt of original sin may be washed from their soul, but they do this, motivated by some base superstition, namely because they think that by the benefit of baptism, these same children may be freed from malignant spirits, from infection, or some illness. . . .
|
21. Cum ad theologos canonumque peritos huius quaestionis examen transisset, varii casus propositi ac discussi fuerunt. Infideles aliqui, cum hoc sibi in animum induxissent, baptismi gratia infantes suos a morbis daemonumque vexationibus liberatum iri, eo dementiae adducti sunt, ut mortem quoque minitati sint catholicis sacerdotibus qui, utpote eorum pravae mentis conscii, baptismum eorumdem liberis constantissime denegabant. . . . (Quidam) sentiunt omnibus conferri baptismum posse, mors ut evitetur, dum materia solum, non autem forma, adhibeatur. At huic sententiae refragatur congregatio S. Officii coram Pontifice habita die 5 septembre 1625: << Sacra Congregatio universalis Inquisitionis habita coram Sanctissimo, relatis Litteris episcopi Antibarensis, in quibus supplicabat pro resolutione infrascripti dubii: An, cum sacerdotes coguntur a Turcis, ut baptizent eorum filios, non ut christianos efficiant, sed pro corporali salute, ut liberentur a foetore, comitiali morbo, maleficiorum periculo et lupis, an in tali casu possint saltem ficte eos baptizare, adhibita baptismi materia sine debita forma? Respondit negative, quia baptismus est ianua sacra mentorum ac protestatio fidei, nec ullo modo fingi potest >>. . . .
|
21. Some unbelievers, when they have represented this idea to themselves, that by the grace of baptism their children will be freed from illnesses and the persecution of the demons, are brought to such a pass of madness that they have also threatened Catholic priests with death. . . . But, in opposition to this belief, the Congregation of the Holy Office in the presence of the Pope on the 5th day of September, 1625, constested: "The Sacred Congregation of the general Inquisition held in the presence of His Holiness, having read the letters of the Bishop Antibarensis, in which he made supplication for a solution of the doubt written below: Whether, when priests are compelled by Turks to baptize their children, not that they may make them Christians, but for their bodily health, so that they may be freed from infection, epilepsy, the danger of bewitchment, and wolves, whether in such a case they could pretend to baptize them, making use of the matter of baptism without the prescribed form? He replied in the negative, because baptism is the door of the sacraments and a profession of faith, and that in no way can it be simulated. . . ."
|
29. . . . Ad eos itaque spectat hic sermo noster, qui baptismo, neque a parentibus neque ab aliis, qui ius in eos habeant, offeruntur, sed ab aliquo nullam habente auctoritatem. De iis praeterea agitur, quorum casus non comprehenduntur sub ea dispositione, quae sinit baptismum conferri, etiamsi maiorum consensus desit: hoc quidem in casu baptizari non debent, sed ad illos remitti, quorum in potestate ac fide sunt legitime constituti. Quod si iam sacramento initiati essent, aut detinendi sunt aut ab Hebraeis parentibus recuperandi tradendique Christi fidelibus, ut ab illis pie sancteque informentur; hic enim baptismi licet illiciti, tamen veri validique, effectus est.
|
29. And so our discourse comes now to those who are presented for baptism neither by the parents nor by others who have any right over them, but by someone who has no authority. In addition, there is a question about those whose cases are not comprehended under the disposition which permits baptism to be conferred, even if the consent of their elders in withheld. In this case, indeed, they ought not to be baptized, but be sent back to those in whose power and trust they are lawfully placed. But, if they have been already admitted to the sacrament, either they must be detained or recovered from their Hebrew parents and handed over to the faithful of Christ, so that they may be piously and religiously trained by them; for this is the effect of baptism, which, though it be unlawful, nevertheless is true and valid.
|
BENEDICT XIV
|