BAPTISM AND PENANCE-AND THE

REVISION OF THE CODE

Just three months after his elevation to the supreme pontificate, John XXIII solemnly announced his intention to hold a synod for the diocese of Rome and a general council-two events that would, in his words, "happily lead to the desired and awaited revision of the Code of Canon Law." The Roman Synod was held in January 1960.2 The ecumenical council, begun October 11, 1962, will soon go into its second session. About the end of March this year, the late pope appointed a committee of cardinals to prepare the Code revision. Since the pope's disclosure of his intention to have Church law revised, many articles have appeared in theological and canonical reviews, speculating as to the nature and range of this aggiornamento and making definite proposals for changes, deletions, and additions. This article is another concerned with the revision of the Code. The author has limited it to a brief discussion of a few points regarding the administration of the sacraments of baptism and penance. While writing on these matters from the point of view of a canonist, he has tried not to neglect some, at least, of their social, pastoral, and liturgical implications.

3

ADMINISTRATION OF BAPTISM

1. Canon 770 underscores the importance of the early reception of baptism by infants: "Infants shall be baptized as soon as possible" (quamprimum). The II Plenary Council of Baltimore

1AAS, LI (1959), 68.

2 Cf. Prima Romana Synodus A.D. MDCCCLX, Vatican City, 1960. Cf. also Abbo, "The Roman Synod: A Survey," AER, CXLV (1961), 80-102. * Cf. Cassola, “De iure poenali Codicis canonici emendando,” Apollinaris, XXXII (1959), 240-259; Staffa, "Imperfezioni e lacune del primo libro del Codice di diritto canonico," Apollinaris, XXXIII (1960), 45-73; Abbo, "The Revision of the Code," The Jurist, XX (1960), 371-397; Cabreros de Anta, "La revision del Código de derecho canónico," Illustración del clero, XXXIII (1960), 384-394; Ciprotti, "Il Codice di diritto canonico e il suo aggiornamento," Ephemerides iuris canonici, XVII (1961), 9-21; McManus, "The Second Vatican Council and the Code of Canon Law," The Jurist, XXII (1962), 259-286; Antonino di Iorio, "L'aggiornamento del Codice di diritto canonico," Laurentianum, III (1962), 417-442. Cf. also the many and

(no. 225) goes a step further and says "at once" (statim). A recent monitum of the Holy Office again urges the prompt baptism of infants: "In certain places the practice has grown of postponing the conferring of baptism for mistaken reasons of convenience or of a liturgical character. . . . This Supreme Sacred Congregation, with the approval of the Supreme Pontiff, warns the faithful that infants are to be baptized as soon as possible, according to the prescriptions of canon 770. Pastors and preachers are exhorted to urge the fulfillment of this obligation."4

Canon 773 rules that "the proper place for the administration of solemn baptism is the baptistry in a church or a public oratory." And canon 774 specifies which churches must or may have a baptismal font: "Every parish church is required to have a baptismal font, without prejudice to the lawful cumulative right already acquired by other churches. For the convenience of the faithful, the local ordinary may permit or command that a baptismal font be placed also in another church or public oratory within the limits of the parish."5

Finally, as regards the place where solemn baptism is to be conferred, canon 775 states: "If, owing to distance or other circumstances, the person to be baptized cannot, without serious inconvenience or danger, come or be carried to the parish church or to some other church which enjoys the right to have a font, solemn baptism may and should be conferred by the pastor in the nearest church or public oratory within the parish limits, even though it should not have a baptismal font."

The norm of canon 738 is also pertinent: "The conferring of solemn baptism is reserved to the pastor or some other priest who possesses the permission of the pastor or the local ordinary; even a peregrinus shall be solemnly baptized by his own pastor in his own parish, if that can be done readily and without delay; other

scholarly articles, all devoted to the revision of the Code, in Estudios de Deusto (Bilbao), VIII (1961), 9-421.

Feb. 18, 1958; Bouscaren-O'Connor, The Canon Law Digest, 1958 Supplement (Milwaukee, 1959), under can. 770.

*For an interesting historical study regarding the traditional link the law makes between the baptistry and the parish, see Lefebvre, "Actes du SaintSiège," L'année canonique, VII (1962), 158-162.

wise any pastor may, in his territory, solemnly baptize a peregrinus."

It is evident then, from the Code's regulations, that solemn baptism must be administered to infants as soon as possible, that the right to confer it is reserved to the pastor of the infants' parents, and that it is to be received within the limits of the family's proper parish as a rule, in their parish church; exceptionally, in a nonparochial church or public oratory within the parish limits, even though lacking a baptismal font."

From this, the general law for the Latin Church, it seems clear that the Code denies the local ordinary the authority to permit a baptismal font in semipublic oratories and therefore to permit, as a rule, the administration of solemn baptism therein. True, there is no express prohibition to this effect. But the fact that the only authorization given the local ordinary is that of permitting a baptismal font in public oratories, allows no other interpretation.

The definiteness of current legislation in regard to the place where solemn baptism may or may not be administered, poses the problem of what to do about the administration of solemn baptism in semipublic oratories annexed to hospitals. There is in the world today a continuous increase in births as well as in the number of these taking place in hospitals. In countries where hospital births are not overwhelmingly common, they are fast becoming so, due to the rapid growth of social institutions and insurance agencies that pay hospitalization in such cases. For many reasons in not a few instances, it would certainly be advisable to administer baptism in the very hospital where the child is born-that is, in the semipublic oratory annexed to it. This would have several advantages. It would greatly facilitate the baptism of infants born of

6

* Cf. also can. 462, which explicitly states that the administration of solemn baptism is reserved to the pastor.

'Cf. also can. 776, permitting in extraordinary circumstances, according to the local ordinary's conscience and discretion, the administration of solemn baptism in private houses.

8

M. a Coronata (De Sacramentis, I [Rome, 1943], no. 154) maintains that the local ordinary is allowed to permit a baptismal font in a semi-public oratory, giving no reason except that a hospital withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the pastor presents a special case. But special cases are not withdrawn from the application of the law unless the law makes special provision for them. Cf. Abbo-Hannan, The Sacred Canons (St. Louis, 1960), I, p. 771.

Catholic parents, should these (or even only one of them) be reluctant to comply with the relevant obligation placed on them by divine law. It would promote, in many cases at least, a more exact obedience to the law requiring the prompt baptism of infantsa law that appears, from the wording of canon 770, to be considered very important by the Church (certainly, more so than the law requiring the administration in one's own parish church). In the case of illegitimate children, it would spare those concerned unnecessary embarrassment. It would furthermore permit the mother to attend the baptism of her child-something she might have to forego were the baptism to take place in the parish church. It would also make it possible for doctors, nurses, and sisters to be present, if they so wished, at a liturgical act directly touching someone they brought or helped bring into the world. Thus they would be afforded a refreshing spiritual pause in an otherwise hectic and feverish round of duties.

But the oratory, if there is one attached to a (maternity) hospital, is but a semipublic oratory-therefore, not even the local ordinary can allow that a baptismal font be placed in it. Often too the hospital is outside the limits of the parish to which the child's parents belong, and as seen, the law insists on reserving the administration of solemn baptism to one's own pastor in one's own parish church.

As of now, the only way to solve the problem is to request the permission of the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments to place baptismal fonts in the semipublic oratories annexed to hospitals where there are maternity wards. Once the local ordinary has obtained this permission and the baptismal font has been placed therein, it is within his competence to empower the hospital chaplain to administer baptism to those who wish to profit by the concession while, at the same time, imposing on him the obligation of keeping a liber baptizatorum and of notifying the proper pastor of the child's family of the administration of baptism in each particular case.

That there is no other solution to the problem in view of the present law is borne out by what recently appeared in a quasiofficial Vatican publication:10 "This Sacred Dicastery [the Sacred

10

Cf. can. 738, § 1.

1o L'attività della Santa Sede nel 1959 (Vatican City, 1960), p. 132.

Congregation of the Sacraments] has favorably accepted, as a rule, [bishops'] requests [to permit baptismal fonts in hospital chapels] and has not failed to give precise norms concerning the recording of the Baptism in the liber baptizatorum, which the clinics [hospitals] granted the baptismal font must have, and concerning the prompt sending, to the rector of the family's parish, of a copy of the child's baptismal certificate. It has also provided for the equitable protection of the rights of the pastors."

It is respectfully hoped that the problem here examined be duly considered by those responsible for the Code revision-so that suitable norms may grant the local ordinary permission to have the baptismal font placed in semipublic oratories attached to hospitals -with all the limitations and qualifications he may see fit to impose.

The wording of such norms could be more or less the wording of similar norms in the Roman Synod.11 For example, a paragraph added to canon 774 could read: "Loci ordinarius concedere potest facultatem lustralis aquae fontem in sacello publicorum

11 Cf. stat. 154, no. 1, 155, 382, 383. According to the Roman Synod, the care of souls exercised by chaplains in public hospitals and other institutions for the sick in the diocese of Rome, is entrusted to the vigilance and direction of a moderator cappellanorum-a sort of vicar general or bishop's delegate for this segment of pastoral life, to whom many powers may be granted by the Cardinal Vicar. In regard to baptism, for instance, he may be granted the faculty to permit baptismal fonts and the administration of baptism in hospitals. He is also obliged to have his own archives in which a record of all baptisms and confirmations administered in such hospitals, as well as the record of those who died there and whose funeral service was there performed, are to be kept. One would surmise, from the Roman Synod's legislation in this regard, that the whole spiritual assistance of the faithful in hospitals and similar institutions may some day be perhaps withdrawn from the competence of the pastor or at least fully entrusted to the proper hospital-chaplain without prejudice to the cumulative right of the territorial pastor. It is extremely important to note that new methods and techniques are constantly being tried by the Church in an effort to reach most effectively all persons who, in some way or other, are outside the range of the apostolic efforts and activities of the parish. Thus, in addition to the military personnel, other classes of faithful already have a special discipline and distinct organization in the Church, at the central, national, district, and local levels. These classes of faithful are the migrants, travelers on ships, and "maritime" persons. Perhaps, in a not too distant future, even the faithful living and working in hospitals and other institutions for the sick and convalescing will have their own law and organization.