On the possibility of Baptism in voto for infants

[Xavier]

I'm sure this is going to be highly controversial, but I know many traditional Catholics believe as I do on infants receiving Baptism of Desire, possibly through the faith and contrition of their parents, as was proposed by Thomas Cajetan. Some people are under the mistaken impression that (1) It is an absolute impossibility for infants to receive the Baptism of Desire, even if their parents are Christian, and death before water baptism unavoidable (2) This alleged impossibility is then said to be a dogma, as if all hope for their eternal salvation was necessarily lost. On the contrary, Dr. Ludwig Ott summarizes well the state of the question slightly before Vatican II, and notes that while highly speculative, many competent and orthodox theologians have proposed some kind of Baptism in voto for children as a possibility,

"Other emergency means of baptism for children dying without sacramental baptism, such as prayer and the desire of the parents or the Church (vicarious baptism of desire—Cajetan), or the attainment of the use of reason in the moment of death, so that the dying child can decide for or against God (baptism of desire—H. Klee), or suffering and death of the child as quasi-Sacrament (baptism of suffering—H. Schell), are indeed possible, but their actuality cannot be proved from Revelation." Cf. Denzinger 712." Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Book 2, Section 2, § 25. It is possibility 1 I will defend in this thread.

The Magisterium under Pope Benedict XVI released this well known study of theologians on this topic and its status in the Church. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html While arguably deficient in some respects (such as its heading), and attacked on that grounds by some traditionalists (who nonetheless go too far and sometimes throw out the baby with the bathwater, almost literally here!), it's the contention of this thread that its conclusion is accurate. [It's not precise to say "unbaptized babies" (who have not received sanctification and regeneration from original sin, either by means of water, or in voto, whether by martyrdom or otherwise) can go to heaven. They have to be baptized to do so. In order to be sanctified, and regenerated, one must receive Baptism, either by means of Water, Blood or Desire, because we cannot go to heaven unless we receive the indwelling grace of the Holy Spirit in our souls.] Also, it doesn't "bury limbo" as some in the mainstream media falsely reported. Once we understand children must necessarily be regenerated by Baptism in voto to enter heaven, limbo - or a place of perfect natural happiness deprived of the beatific vision - remains the place where non-sanctified infants will necessarily go. This thread is to inquire reverently into whether such sanctification in the womb etc is possible, and if so, what may be the conditions necessary for such sanctification to take place.

1. First, Baptism in Blood is a type of Baptism in voto, and is not sacramental baptism (i.e. it does not imprint the seal or baptismal character etc):

No one doubts the Holy Innocents were saved, that would be heretical. So it is quite certain that infants can receive Baptism of Blood. St. Alphonsus, citing Suarez, says it is at least temerarious to deny martyrdom, like baptism in water, avails sanctification and regeneration for children. While in adults acceptance of martyrdom is necessary, the Doctor says, in infants, it is sufficient that they be persecuted out of hatred for Christ or some Christian virtue. Now, if the evil intention of persecutors can supply for the intention of children, so that their death is accounted a true martyrdom (without their desire or intention), is it really the case that the faith and love of the parents, desire for baptism joined to contrition, can never supply to avail Baptism of Desire for their children?

2. The Angelic Doctor's answer that children should not be baptized by men while still in their mother's womb indicates that they can be baptized (not necessarily in water) and sanctified in the womb by direct divine Power, as St. Thomas says some have been:

"Article 11. Whether a child can be baptized while yet in its mother's womb?

Objection 1. It seems that a child can be baptized while yet in its mother's womb. For the gift of Christ is more efficacious unto salvation than Adam's sin unto condemnation, as the Apostle says (Romans 5:15). But a child while yet in its mother's womb is under sentence of condemnation on account of Adam's sin. For much more reason, therefore, can it be saved through the gift of Christ, which is bestowed by means of Baptism. Therefore a child can be baptized while yet in its mother's womb.

Reply to Objection 1. Children while in the mother's womb have not yet come forth into the world to live among other men. Consequently they cannot be subject to the action of man, so as to receive the sacrament, at the hands of man, unto salvation. They can, however, be subject to the action of God, in Whose sight they live, so as, by a kind of privilege, to receive the grace of sanctification; as was the case with those who were sanctified in the womb." (ST, Tertia Pars, Q 68, A 11) http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4068.htm

3. Scripture explicitly says St. John the Baptist was one of those St. Thomas says was sanctified in the womb:

In Scripture, we read the Angel St. Gabriel say of St. John the Baptist, "He shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb" (Luk 1:15). St. Montfort calls the sanctification of John the Baptist in the womb the first miracle of grace that Jesus worked. we see that He worked it through the intervention of His Mother, as at Cana, His first public miracle of nature. But what more can we learn from this Biblical incident?

We need to pay very close attention to what is happening here. It seems clear some powerful grace acted on St.Elizabeth, moved her to deep faith in and love for God and His Mother. And did this act of faith and love to which she was moved by the Holy Spirit not play a role in sanctifying her child? So again, why should it be said that the prayer, tears and desire of parents can play no role at all in the sanctification of children in the womb? Supposing one doesn't want to attribute anything of John the Baptist's sanctification to his mother St. Elizabeth, supposing, as is defensible, one attributes it all only to the infant Jesus and to Mother Mary who visited the house. If Jesus and Mary did it for John and for others, is it impossible that they should do so also for our children, who we commend and consecrate to them, that they may be baptized in Spirit, as John the Baptist was? St. Elizabeth proclaimed Mary Blessed and her child was sanctified, she did not even explicitly request or desire it. Who is to say children won't be sanctified while we say the Rosary for them, repeat St. Elizabeth's words and invoke Our Blessed Mother and God? The Church says we can commend children to the mercy of God in funeral prayers. So, there are prayerful (and Scriptural) grounds for hope.

4. St. Bernard expressly tells a weeping mother all hope for her child's salvation is not necessarily lost:

St. Bernard beautifully says, "Your faith spoke for this child. Baptism for this child was only delayed by time. Your faith suffices. The waters of your womb—were they not the waters of life for this child? Look at your tears. Are they not like the rivers of baptism? Do not fear this! God's ability to love is greater than our fears! Surrender everything to God." which gives us grounds to hope for some kind of vicarious baptism of desire.

Disclaimer: All that I argue is of course entirely subject to the judgment of the Church and of the Apostolic Throne of St. Peter. All this is only to show that the conclusion of the theological study approved by the Magisterium is eminently defensible, "None of the above considerations should be taken as qualifying the necessity of Baptism or justifying delay in administering the sacrament.[135] Rather, as we want to reaffirm in conclusion, they provide strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptize them into the faith and life of the Church."

If indeed Almighty God had decreed children without water baptism were to be eternally deprived of seeing the beauty of His face and light of His glory in heaven, Christian parents would have to bow in humble adoration before that decree of divine Justice. But if, as this thread contends is the case, we have good theological reason to believe He has - by a most wondrous providence implicitly revealed in Sacred Scripture, dependent upon the merits of Christ and the prayers of His Church, ordained some possible entrance into the beatific vision itself, so much the more are we justified in praising and rejoicing in His divine Mercy.

[Michael Wilson]

While I am sympathetic towards this opinion, the contrary one is taught by the Catechism of the Council of Trent:http://catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Holy7Sacraments-Baptism.shtml

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.

[Michael Wilson]

Xavier,
read this excerpt from the Irish Ecclesiastical Record (on google books); vol 12 pgs. 506 ffdd. The author qualifies this opinion as "untenable" (pg. 507). 
https://books.google.com/books?id=8SAEAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA506&lpg=PA506&dq=the+opinion+of+Cajetan+condemned+by+St.+Pius+V&source=bl&ots=LXz4E8Zoi2&sig=PJIOUHgDVIHgJxZ6Q7F4MH89jgk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjvjeyS26vYAhXo64MKHQyRABQQ6AEINzAD#v=onepage&q=the%20opinion%20of%20Cajetan%20condemned%20by%20St.%20Pius%20V&f=false

[Xavier]

Dear Michael, today we celebrate the feast of the Holy Innocents. How were they saved? If the text refers only to Baptism in water, we must postulate a quasi miraculous baptism in water for them. Surely, it was not without Baptism, but it was Baptism in Blood. But Baptism in blood is not sacramental Baptism (e.g. no seal and character) but is Baptism in voto. So there are at least some cases where all theologians admit martyrdom avails to supply Baptism for infants, St. Alphonsus and Fr. Suarez saying it would be temerarious to deny it 1. Now, how did the intention of the persecutors supply for the intention of the Holy Innocents? That is, what moved God to sanctify them, was it their own intention or was it the evil intention of their persecutors, which God accounted sufficient to consider their deaths a true martyrdom? 2. Second, if circumcision was the only means God accepted for dispensingof sanctification to children in the old, how were Jewish girl children sanctified? Are non-Jewish children of parents who were just? No means of sanctification for them? Cajetan says almost all who have considered this question admit faith and contrition of parents united to desire could supply in the old; but what is the basis then for denying it in the new? Did Jesus Christ come to ensure many children would be lost? Did He show Himself more bountiful in the old than in the New? 3. The opponents of this possibility (all of whom admit the Church had the opportunity to formally condemn it if She wanted, but did not) ask us to point to explicit instances of God sanctifying children in the womb or in infancy in revelation; Dr. Ott "are indeed possible but their actuality cannot be proved from revelation". But why not? Why don't John the Baptist etc count? What of the words of St. Thomas and St. Bernard? Some of them even seem to suggest water is so necessary God would have to sanctify children in the womb by means of water and that parents can only pray for this; but in answer, while even that is undoubtedly in the power of God, why deny Him the power of being able to sanctify children in His Spirit only, as St. Thomas expressly says He can and does, and as to all apperances he did in the case of the Baptist? Jesus baptized the Baptist in Spirit in the womb! Subject to correction by the Magisterium, we hold He can do the same for our children. God bless.

[John Lamb]

Marcel Van (March 15, 1928 – July 10, 1959), or Marcel Nguy?n Tân V?n C.Ss.R., Servant of God, was a Vietnamese Redemptorist brother. During his life, he received locutions and visions from St. Thérèse of Lisieux, Jesus Christ, and the Blessed Virgin Mary. He is called "The Apostle of Love", continuing the teachings of St. Therese of Lisieux's "Little Way." He died in a North Vietnam internment camp, and his cause for beatification was opened in 1997 by the Venerable Cardinal Nguyen Van Thuan.

[...]

Unbaptized children

In the Conversations, Marcel Van affirms that Jesus Christ gave some clues as to the solution of the ancient Catholic debate on the topic of unbaptized children:

"JESUS: Remember this well. When the intelligence of little children is still undeveloped, the same applies to will. Intelligence is used to understand whether a thing is good or bad and the will is used to act in accordance with what the intelligence discerns. These two faculties are essential [700], and it is these essential faculties that little children lack. It is therefore necessary for another will to settle within the hearts of these little children. If this will acts in accordance with good, it is equivalent to the little children acting in this way of their own volition.

However, for this will to manifest itself, it must act in accordance with good, with truth itself. If this will acts in a way opposed to good, to truth, it will not produce any effect.

You must place your will within the hearts of little children. In this way they will also belong to the Holy Church. Should they come to die before attaining the use of reason, they will nonetheless ascend to Heaven with Me, for they will have your will with them. You have the will to believe everything the Holy Church teaches you to believe, and you also possess the will to love Me. Because of this, the children will share your will and their souls will belong to the Holy Church and to Me in their entirety. These children may know nothing, but within them resides the will of another who knows, and though they may not know, they will understand.

Do you understand this, little brother? Offer Me your will and I will put it in the souls of children on earth. Henceforth you can rest assured that all little children already belong to Me.

Little brother, this notion of will I have revealed to you was not known until now. Little children were always saved in this manner without man ever realizing it. Come little brother, banish your sadness and be joyful. You are the apostle of children. It was necessary for you to know this.

Children saved in this manner are baptized in Love itself. They are allowed to confess their faith in love. This act of love is accomplished by will."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Nguy%E1%BB%85n_T%C3%A2n_V%C4%83n
See also: http://www.mysticsofthechurch.com/2010/08/brother-marcel-van-spirtual-brother-of.html

[Michael Wilson]

Xavier,
good points; but if the contrary opinion is held by almost all Catholic theologians, then it is not a safe opinion for a Catholic to hold.
John L.
This is a private revelation; it cannot be a deciding factor in a doctrinal question. Thanks for posting it.