Diwa: Studies in Philosophy and Theology

Diwa is a refereed journal published twice a year by the

Graduate Schools of Divine Word Seminary, Tagaytay City
and Christ the King Mission Seminary, Quezon City
Philippines

Editorial Board

Editors Randolf C. Flores, SVD, SSL,PhD/SThD (cand.)

Felix Ferrer, SVD, SThD

Managing Editor Antolin Uy, SVD, PhD

Business Manager Wilfredo Saniel, SVD, SThL
Member Guillermo Villegas, SVD, SSL, SThD
Member Dionisio Miranda, SVD, SThD
Member Leonardo Estioko, SVD, PhD+

Manuscripts for publication, books for review and notice should be addressed to:
The Editor of Diwa
Divine Word Seminary
SVD Road, Tagaytay City
4120 Philippines

E-mail: diwasvd@yahoo.com or ctstagaytay@yahoo.com

Telephone (0063) 046- 413-1253

Fax: (0063) 046-413-1251

ISSN 0115 – 592x

New Subscription Rates

In the Philippines
One year.............................. PhP 600.00
Two years............................. PhP 1,166.67
Three years........................... PhP 1,750.00
Single copy........................... PhP 300.00
Abroad Airmail
One year.............................. USD 30.00
Two years............................. USD 55.00
Three years........................... USD 85.00
Single copy........................... USD 22.00
 DIWA
Title Header
Studies in Philosophy and Theology
Diwa is a refereed journal published twice a year by the
Graduate Schools of Divine Word Seminary, Tagaytay City
and Christ the King Mission Seminary, Quezon City
Philippines
Volume 33, no. 1 May 2008
CONTENTS

1-19 Kant’s Speculative Agnosticism in the Critique of Pure Reason

Aris P. Martin, SVD
20-35 Freedom and Love: Core Values in Pauline Ethics
Leander V. Barrot, OAR
36-57 Disputed Questions Concerning Those to be Baptized:
Comments on Cc. 868, 870, 871, and 913
Adolfo N. Dacanáy, SJ
58-87 Pontifical Missionary Societies:
A Brief Philippine History (1932-2007)
James H. Kroeger, MM
88-108 Catechesis is a Practice of Faith:
A Critique of the National Catechism
Rafael Dy-Liacco
109-134 Book Reviews
Randolf C. Flores, SVD (Editor)
James Chuckwuma Okoye, Israel and the Nations: A
Mission Theology of the Old Testament (R.C. Flores)
Carlo Maria Martini, The Gospel According to St. Paul:
Meditations on His Life and Letters (C.D. Reyes)
Gerald O’Collins, Jesus: A Portrait (C.D. Reyes)
 Dedication in Memoriam

Fr. Leonardo R. Estioko, SVD (1944-2008)

Fr. Estioko belonged to the Society of the Divine Word and was
ordained priest in 1972. He obtained his doctorate in philosophy from
the Gregorian University (Rome, 1978); his dissertation on Newman
was published a year after (Reasonableness in Religious Belief : J. H.
Newman’s Defense of Simple Faith Against Liberalism, Tagaytay Series
[Tagaytay: Divine Word Seminary, 1979]). He taught philosophy at
the Jesuit university for five years before going back to the Philippines.
He was the dean of studies of Divine Word Seminary and then vice-
president for academic affairs of the University of San Carlos in Cebu
(1982-1988). He also served as the dean and rector of Christ the
King Seminary (Quezon City) where he taught for many years. In
August 2008, the faculty and students of this school of philosophy
gave him an award as the Most Outstanding Filipino SVD Professor
of Philosophy.
He was the author of other books, Essays in Philippine Education
(1989); History of Education: A Philippine Perspective (1994); Witness to
the Word: Readings on St. Arnold Janssen and the SVD Mission, vols. 1
and 2 (2005/2007); and Philosophy of Education: A Filipino Perspective
(2008). He also wrote a significant number of articles in philosophy
most of them published in this journal (Diwa).
“Dabo eis in domo mea et in muris meis locum et nomen melius a filiis
et filiabus…” (Isaiah 56:5). Requiescat in pace.
Contributors (Diwa 33, no. 1)
1. ARIS P. MARTIN, SVD holds an M.A. in Philosophy from Christ
the King Mission Seminary (Quezon City, Philippines) and teaches
at the same institution. He is also a candidate for Bachelor in Sacred
Theology and M.A. in Pastoral Ministry at the Divine Word Seminary
(Tagaytay City, Philippines).
2. LEANDER V. BARROT, OAR obtained his Licentiate in Sacred
Scripture (SSL) from the Pontifical Biblical Institute, Rome (2000). He
teaches at Recoletos Formation Center, Maryhill School of Theology,
and Institute of Formation and Religious Studies (all in Quezon City).
He is also the President of the Recoletos Communications, Inc.
3. ADOLFO N. DACANáY, SJ received his doctorate in Canon Law
(JCD) from the Pontifical Gregorian University, Rome (1989). He
teaches theology at the Ateneo de Manila University (Quezon City);
he serves as a judge in the ecclesiastical tribunals of the Archdiocese
of Manila and the Dioceses of Pasig and Lucena. He is the author of
Canon Law on Marriage: Introductory Notes and Comments (Ateneo de
Manila, 2000) and The Sacraments of Initiation: A Commentary on Cc.
849-958 of the Code of Canon Law (Anvil, 2006).
4. JAMES H. KROEGER, MM, professor of Systematic Theology,
Mission Studies and Islamics at Loyola School of Theology in
Manila, holds licentiate and doctorate degrees in Missiology from
the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome. He is President of the
Philippine Association of Catholic Missiologists and Consultant to the
Asian Bishops’ (FABC) Office of Evangelization. His recent books
include the following titles: The Future of the Asian Churches, Becoming
Local Church, and Once Upon a Time in Asia (Manila: Claretian
Publications).
5. RAFAEL DY-LIACCO holds an M.A.R. from Yale Divinity School
(New Haven, Connecticut) and presently teaches theology at the
Ateneo de Manila University (Quezon City).
6. RANDOLF C. FLORES, SVD teaches Old Testament and Biblical
Hebrew at Divine Word Seminary, Tagaytay City and at the Loyola
4 Outside Header Left

School of Theology, Quezon City; and theology at the Ateneo de

Manila University where he is a PhD and SThD candidate. He holds
a Licentiate in Sacred Scripture (SSL) from the Pontifical Biblical
Institute, Rome (1999). He is the President of the Catholic Biblical
Association of the Philippines.
7. CARLITO D. REYES is a priest of the Diocese of Pasig (Manila)
and teaches New Testament at the Divine Word Seminary and theology
at the Ateneo de Manila University. He holds an M.A. and Licentiate
in Sacred Theology from the Ateneo de Manila University and Loyola
School of Theology respectively where he is also a PhD and SThD
candidate. He serves as pastor of the Our Lady of the Rosary Parish,
Ammanford, Carmarthenshire, Wales, U.K.

Note: the main editor of this volume is

RANDOLF C. FLORES, SVD
Diwa 33 (2008): 36-57

Disputed Questions Concerning

Those to be Baptized: Comments on
Cc. 868, 870, 871, and 913
Adolfo N. Dacanáy, SJ
Ateneo de Manila University
Quezon City, Philippines

T
his essay addresses six general questions concerning those to be
baptized: (1) the baptism of the insane; (2) the question of infant
baptism; (3) the necessity of parental consent; (4) the require-
ment of a well-founded hope that the child will be raised in the Catholic
religion; (5) the matter of parental consent in the baptism of children in
danger of death; and (6) the baptism of a fetus and an abandoned infant.
1. Concerning Those Who Are Not Sui Compos. This section
will deal with their reception of the sacraments of Baptism, considered
necessary for salvation, and the Eucharist, source of life and nourishment
for the soul.
1.1 The Baptism of those who are not sui compos. It is unfortunate
that the new Code does not contain any provision for the baptism of
persons who may suffer from this pathological condition. In the absence
of such norms, it may be helpful to recall the guidelines provided by
the old Code.1

(a) Those who are insane, or are deprived of the use of

their reason shall not be baptized unless their condition
has existed from birth, or from a period preceding their

1
Abbo and Hannan, The Sacred Canons I, 755-756; Woywood, A Practical
Commentary on the Code of Canon law I, 337-338. Cappello, De Sacramentis I,
no.156, 137.
6 Diwa 33 (2008): 36-57 A.N.
A.N.Dacanáy,
Dacanáy,“Disputed
“DisputedQuestions”
Questions” 66
attaining the use of reason; and then they are to be
baptized as infants.

(b) If they have lucid intervals, and they request baptism

during these intervals, they are to be baptized while
they enjoy the use of reason.
(c) They shall also be baptized when the danger of death
impends if, before they became insane or during a lucid
interval, they manifested a desire to receive baptism.
(d) If a person is comatose or delirious, he shall be
baptized only when he is awake and desirous of baptism;
but if danger of death impends, norm (c) above shall be
observed. In the absence of such a manifested desire,
conditional baptism may be conferred as in the case
of normal persons deprived of their senses because of
illness.2

It should perhaps be mentioned that in the Philippines, the more likely

possibility is that such persons have already been baptized when they
were infants. The parents of such persons would have done this usual
duty of parents in this predominantly Catholic culture.
1.2 As regards the matter of the Eucharist for these non sui compos
persons, the following should be said. In general, the procedure
prescribed for adults, i.e., one who has completed seven years, is that
when they are baptized, they are also to be confirmed immediately and
they are to participate in the mass by receiving communion [C.866].
The juridical obligation contained in the canon is that these three
sacraments of initiation are to be conferred in one liturgical rite, and
celebrated by the same minister. It should be remembered that while a
bishop is the ordinary minister of confirmation, the following have the
faculty to confer that same sacrament: (a) if the recipient is in danger
of death, the pastor or indeed any presbyter [C.883.3]; (b) likewise, a
priest who has the faculty to baptize adults either in virtue of his office
or by mandate of the diocesan bishop. The consensus understanding

2
Vermeersch-Creusen, Epitome Juris Canonici II, no.35; III, no. 243.
 A.N. Dacanáy, “Disputed Questions” 7
of the present law is that these three sacraments are united materially
in time; and that they are therefore to be celebrated immediately one
after the other.3 The Code of 1917 was not understood as clearly to
mean this.4
On the other hand, this norm cannot be applied simply to those
who are not sui compos. The provisions of canon law concerning the
Eucharist for children would be more applicable to these persons who
do not have the full use of their faculties.
Pius X, through the document Quam singulari (8 Aug 1910),
reprobated the practice of requiring a higher age for communion and
penance.5 The interest of the C.913 is to ensure that children who
receive the Eucharist have adequate and spiritual preparation. The
minimum requirements seem to include two elements: age, implicit
and presupposed for the second, which is adequate preparation. The
age requirement is usually described as the age of discretion when the
children can be presumed to be able to distinguish the eucharistic
bread from ordinary bread. This age is more or less seven. There are no

3
During the revision of the law, both stricter and lighter reasons were proposed
for departure from the norm that adults receive all three sacraments of initiation
in a continuous ceremony. [An earlier schema required a grave reason (nisi gravis
obstet ratio) to defer confirmation, in Comm. 13 (1981), p.222, re C.18. Another
previous formulation called for a just cause (nisi justa obstet causa); but the objection
that such a formulation would diminish the importance of Christian initiation was
sustained. In place of justa ratio, gravissima ratio was proposed and the compromise
was reached: gravis ratio, in Comm. 15 (1983), p.181, re C.820. ] The present canon
calls for a grave reason to separate the three sacraments. Some of the grave reasons
that would justify such a departure from the prescribed manner: if there is no chrism
available (DOL 2344); when a person is at the point of death or when there is no
time because death is imminent (DOL 2345).
4
El Código dice que inmediátamente. Mientras que unos autores interpretan
este adverbio en sentido material y riguroso (o sea inmediátamente después del
bautismo), otros canonistas, a los que nos adherimos, extienden mas ese espacio
de tiempo, equiparando el adverbio latino (statim) que emplea el legislador a otro
de frecuente uso en la ley canónica que admite mayor flexibilidad: quamprimum, y
cuya traducción legal exacta es: cuanto antes. Por este motivo, sería lícito extender el
plazo legal citado incluso hasta tres días. Comentarios al Código de Derecho Canónico
(BAC, 1963), II, 129.
5
cf. AAS 2 (1910), 577-583; also in Gasparri, Fontes 5, pp.80-85, document
no.2103.
8 Diwa 33 (2008): 36-57

specific norms concerning the requisite sufficient knowledge although

the New American Commentary suggests the formative experiences
in faith promoted by active participation in the Eucharist especially
when adapted to the level of the children as proposed by the principles
contained in the Directory on Children’s Masses.6
The second paragraph modifies the requirements in order to allow
the giving of communion to a child in danger of death, requiring
only that he or she should be able to distinguish the Eucharist from
ordinary food. Should the child recover from the illness or some other
grave condition, then he or she should undergo the usual catechetical
preparation for first communion.
It can be argued that a similar norm can be applied to the
handicapped and the learning-impaired, that is, provided they are able
to distinguish the eucharistic bread from the ordinary, they should
be considered as capable of participating in the Eucharist. This is a
prudential judgement that parents and pastors will have to make in
individual cases.7 Persons with these impairments may not be capable
of abstract conceptualizations or of articulating their belief that
there is a difference between the Eucharist as the body and blood of
Christ and ordinary food, but they can appreciate the difference and
the sacredness of the Eucharist through the reverence they show and
which they see others show.8 It is relevant to note that C.710 of the

6
New American Commentary, p.1108.
7
Cardinal Wright, former prefect of the Congregation of the Clergy, wrote:
“As far as the profoundly handicapped are concerned, there is no doubt that they
belong to a special portion of the people of God, and they need special attention on
the part of parents, pastors, and educators, who should ultimately decide whether
the children are ready to approach the sacraments or not.” The letter is dated 23
Nov 1978, prot. no.159082/11, cited by Huels, “’Use of Reason and Reception of
the Sacraments by the Mentally Handicapped”, The Jurist 44 (1984), 214. Cf. also,
by the same author, One Table, Many Laws: Essay on Catholic Eucharistic Practice
(Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1986), 67-73.
8
Although Cappello, commenting on the Code of 1917, made two distinctions
between those who may have been extremely retarded from birth and those who
became so subsequently (fatui a nativitate and post adeptum usum rationis in
idiotismum inciderint), and the “fully retarded” on the one hand and, on the other,
those that are only partially so, for the latter, he affirms the same principle: if they
are able to distinguish this heavenly nourishment from other kinds of food, then
 A.N. Dacanáy, “Disputed Questions” 9
Code of the Oriental Churches allows the reception of communion by
infants in the context of the law of the Church restoring the temporal
conjunction of the sacraments of initiation.9
2. Baptism of Children. This section treats these three questions:
(1) historical introduction; (2) difficulties raised against the practice of
infant baptism and the responses to these difficulties; (3) a theology of
infant baptism.
2.1 The baptism of infants is a practice in the Church that goes back
to late apostolic times if not earlier. It is generally known that while
the first converts to Christianity were adults, it is not unknown that
their children were also baptized with them (see Acts 10:44-48). From
the third century onwards, parents were definitely expected to present
their children for baptism at an early age and educate them in the faith.
The requirement to baptize infants was seen as especially important in
danger of death. When Augustine developed the theology of original
sin in his controversy with the Pelagians, original sin predominated the
understanding of baptism, and the importance of infant baptism was
emphasized more than ever before. The baptism of infants in danger
of death was always seen as an urgent necessity, even when the parents
were non-Catholics and were unwilling to have their children baptized.
Many difficult situations arose as a result, especially when the child,
baptized in periculo mortis, recovered. There have been cases where the
child was forcibly taken from the parents and raised by Catholics to
safeguard the requirement of Catholic education of the child.10 The
present canon reflects this solid tradition in the Church and lays

they should be allowed to receive communion. Cappello, De Sacramentis, Vol. I:

De Sacramentis in Genere, de Baptismo, de Confirmatione, et Eucharistia (Romae:
Marietti, 1953), p.365, no.403. It is the opinion of Kaslyn that persons afflicted by
Alzheimers disease can receive communion if they are able to distinguish the body
of Christ from ordinary food by their manner, silence, or expression of their eyes,
especially when they have shown much devotion to the Eucharist in their healthier
days. Roman Replies and CLSA Advisory Opinions 1995, 72-74.
9
V. J. Pospishil, Eastern Catholic Church Law (New York: St. Maron Publications,
1993), 302.
10
In Nov 1857, Edgar Morata, a Jewish child in danger of death, was baptized
by a Christian servant. Pope Pius IX ordered that Edgar, aged 7, be taken from his
parents and be placed in the College of St. Peter in Vincoli. Edgar later became a
priest and a canon regular.
10 Diwa 33 (2008): 36-57

down the rules governing when an infant is to be baptized in normal

circumstances and in danger of death. Under normal circumstances
an infant is to be baptized within the first few weeks. This is a change
from the norm of C.770 of the Code of 1917 which demanded that
infants be baptized “as soon as possible.” This reflects the fact that in
many countries the infant mortality rate is much lower than what it
used to be; it also enables the parents to be present at the ceremony; it
likewise allows the family and the godparents to be properly prepared
for baptism in accord with C.851.2.
During the massive missionary expansion of the Church from the
16 century onwards, the Church found herself in an entirely different
th

situation. It could no longer rely on a Christian society to assist or make

up for the shortcomings of parents/godparents. The Holy Office and
the Propaganda Fide emphasized the parental obligations to educate
their children in the faith.11 Missionaries were advised that they ought
to have reasonable hope concerning the future Catholic education
and upbringing of the child before baptism could be administered.12
The obligation for the upbringing of the child became more and more
exclusively that of the parents.
2.2 The practice of baptizing infants is evidently not without its
difficulties. The obvious problems that have been raised repeatedly
against this ancient and traditional practice in the Church is the lack
of faith in the person receiving the sacrament as well as the lack of
freedom and responsible choice in the reception of the sacrament,
especially in view of the serious responsibilities arising from baptism.

Cf. the reply of the Holy Office dated 21 Jan 1767 in Codicis Juris Canonici
11

Fontes, vol.IV, document no.819, p.97; also, the instruction of the Propaganda Fide
to the Longo Mission dated 30 Aug 1775 in Codicis Juris Canonici Fontes, vol.VII,
document no.4562, p.103.
12
Se sia lecito battezzare i bambini degli eretici esibiti al battesimo dai genitori,
parenti, ed amici benche no vi sia probabilita nella parte dei genitori che saranno
istruiti nella religione cattolica? Dentur decreta 24 Aug 1826 and 19 Sept 1827,
nempe: Illam praxim [baptizandi, etc.] non esse approbandam, prout ex epistola
ad Archepiscopum Pisanum; ab hac regula in praxi discedi non debere, scilicet
infantes haereticorum a parentibus oblatos non esse baptizandos, nisi probabilis spes
affulgeat catholicae eorum educationis. Reply of the Holy Office to the missionaries
in North America dated 6 March 1844 in Codicis Juris Canonici Fontes, vol.IV,
document no.895, p.173.
 A.N. Dacanáy, “Disputed Questions” 11
The instruction Pastoralis Actio of the Congregation for the Doctrine
of the Faith summarizes the difficulties of infant baptism and proposes
some answers to them.13

(a) It is claimed by some quarters that, as in the New

Testament, the good news as preached first, and then
arouses the faith of the people, and it is on the basis
of this faith that the sacrament is administered. This
should be the norm, and that outside the danger of
death, this sequence should be extended to children.
To this objection, the Congregation for the Doctrine
of the Faith (CDF) answered that while it is true that
the preaching of the apostles was ordinarily directed
to adults and they were the first converts and the first
to be baptized—and so the impression could be given
that the only consideration was the faith of adults,
there exists, however, a long history, almost equally
venerable as the tradition of baptism itself, which can
be traced to the apostles behind the practice of infant
baptism. Besides, baptism is never conferred without
faith which, in the case of infants, is the faith of the
Church. Further, baptism is not merely a sign, but it is
also a cause of faith.
(b) It is argued that grace must be received personally,
and since infants cannot receive it personally, the
sacrament should be deferred until they can. The CDF
explains that the infant is a person long before he is
able to demonstrate this fact through acts of awareness
and freedom. As a person, he can already become a
child of God through baptism. Later, when he is able
to exercise awareness and freedom, the powers of the
grace will be available to and through these faculties.

13
The text of the document can be found in Canon Law Digest 9, 508-527;
cf. also the comments of T. Rincon in Disciplina Canonica del Culto Divino, in
Manual de Derecho Canonico (Navarre: EUNSA, 1988), 428-30.
12 Diwa 33 (2008): 36-57

(c) A third difficulty is the question of freedom. The

objection is raised that infant baptism puts a limit on
the infant’s freedom. It seems contrary to the dignity
of a person to impose on him religious obligations to
be observed in the future but which he himself will
probably repudiate. The CDF counters that there is
no such a thing as human freedom that is absolute and
completely free from any external influence. Parents
make choices for their children including values,
attitudes, dispositions, exposures. The attitude of the
family which professes to be neutral is actually harmful
because if indeed it can actually be neutral, it also by
that very decision abdicates its role in favor of other,
and usually pernicious, influences. Besides, all human
beings, as creatures, are objectively bound by duties to
God which cannot be bypassed, and which baptism
confirms and exalts through adoption as children of
God. In the New Testament, entrance to Christian
life is presented not as servitude or coercion but as an
avenue to genuine freedom. And if indeed the child
will repudiate the Christian religion, the parents should
have no reason for self-reproach. Appearances to the
contrary notwithstanding, the seeds of faith may come
to life and bear fruit some day.
(d) The practice of infant baptism seems to indicate
a certain preoccupation with numbers—so many
children were baptized, and the church has grown by
so much. It may also abet the view, unconscious as
it may be, that baptism is a social event establishing
a certain social status (almost like a debut), besides
encouraging a magical concept of the sacrament. On
the contrary, the Church’s mission is to bring the faith
of Christians to maturity and promote their free and
conscious commitment. But it has to be pointed out
that the pastoral requirements for adults cannot simply
be transferred unchanged and unmodified to infants
who are baptized in the faith of the Church, and the
 A.N. Dacanáy, “Disputed Questions” 13
necessity of baptism for salvation cannot be treated
lightly. Infant baptism manifests the prevenient act of
God in our regard and the gratuitous love with which
he surrounds our lives.

2.3 Without denying that there are certain difficulties attendant

upon the practice of infant baptism, there is a solid tradition and reason
behind it. It is a practice that has more reason on its side, and there is
no reason therefore why it should not be continued. Two values have
to be kept in mind and maintained in a dynamic tension and balance
so to speak. The first is the teaching of the Church that baptism is
necessary for salvation. It is an instrument of God’s prevenient love
which frees us from sin and gives us a share in the divine life. This
point of view argues for infant baptism as universal practice. On the
other hand, baptism is also a sign, and therefore assurances must be
given that this gift will be able to grow through a genuine education in
the faith and in Christian living.14 As a rule, the assurances are given
by parents or relatives, though these can be supplied in various other
ways by the Christian community. In the absence of these assurances,
baptism ought to be postponed if not denied altogether.15
For this reason, the Code prescribes that parents are to take care
that their children are to be baptized in the first few weeks; an infant
in danger of death is to be baptized without delay [C.867]. The
precariousness of life and very high incidence of mortality until very
recently led to the urgency of baptizing infants as soon as possible after
birth, a practice mandated by the Code of 1917.16 The present Code,
partially as a result of improved infant life expectancy, has mitigated
14
R. Martinelli, “Il Battesimo dei Bambini”, Monitor Ecclesiasticus 115 (1990),
67-80. He emphasizes that there should be a balance between the necessity of
baptism for salvation and the guarantee that the gift of faith will grow.
15
See the reply of the Holy Office in footnote 13.
16
This practice was mandated by the Council of Florence which decreed that
infants are to be baptized as soon as possible [quamprimum], either immediately
after birth or in the first month of life [DOL 576]. This was the practice prescribed
by the Code of 1917 [C.770], which left particular law to determine its meaning.
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 at the
baptism of their own children. The New CLSA Commentary, 1054-55.
14 Diwa 33 (2008): 36-57

the previous practice, speaking as it does of the baptism of infants “in

the first few weeks,” rather than “as soon as possible.” The term “the
first few weeks” should be understood in the context of and together
with the other requirement of the Code mentioned in C.851.2 that
the parents of the child who is to be baptized and those who are to
undertake the office of sponsor, are to be suitably instructed on the
meaning of the sacrament and the obligations attaching to it. Because
of this requirement, the “first few weeks” must be understood to allow
the opportunity for these persons to be instructed in the faith and the
obligations of the office the sponsors are assuming. In the Philippines,
these sessions of baptismal instructions are usually scheduled weekly. In
the concrete, one would suppose that this term should mean anywhere
from four to six weeks--the period necessary to arrange for and attend
these needed instructions. In some cases, it may be necessary to extend
the period to allow the mother to heal so that she too can be present.
In fact, some circumstances such as the lack of personal preparation on
the part of the parents might even require a longer interval between the
birth and the baptism of the child.
The change in the discipline reflects a shift in theology. Since
popular piety may still think of baptism in terms of removal of original
sin and insurance against limbo, the sense of urgency has shifted from
the rite of baptism itself to the catechesis of the infant’s parents about
baptism and their formation for raising their child in the faith. It is
this catechesis and formation that has to occur quamprimum.17 The
necessity of this formation is the reason for the Code’s greater flexibility
regarding the time when an infant is to be baptized.18

17
The New CLSA Commentary, 1055.
18
The Rite mentions other reasons to postpone the baptism of the child: As for
the time of baptism, the first consideration is the welfare of the child, that it may
not be deprived of the benefits of the sacrament; the health of the mother must be
considered that she may be present if at all possible. Then, as long as they do not
interfere with the greater good of the child, there are pastoral considerations such
as allowing sufficient time to prepare the parents. When the parents are not yet
prepared to profess the faith or to undertake the duty of bringing up their children
as Christians, it is for the parish priest to determine the time for the baptism of
infants. DOL 2292.
 A.N. Dacanáy, “Disputed Questions” 15
3. Parental Consent in Ordinary Circumstances. It is incumbent
principally upon the parents to see to it that infants are baptized within
the first weeks after birth. [C.867.1] Parents should be made aware of
the importance of baptism so that it is not unduly delayed until such
time as they have enough money for the baptismal party, for example.
C.868.1 requires two things for the licit conferral of baptism on
infants: (a) consent on the part of at least one parent, or of the person
who lawfully takes their place; (b) a well-founded hope (spes fundata)
that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion. This section
focuses on the first condition.
The first condition refers to the consent for baptism [C.868.1.1].
The very fact that the child is being presented for baptism is obviously
consent; it is normally an index too of their acceptance of the
responsibility implied in the baptism of their child. Conversely, if the
parents are unwilling to have their child baptized, then this clearly
means that they are unwilling to assume that responsibility. While it
is most desirable that both parents assume this serious responsibility,
the situation contemplated by the canon allows for baptism to be
conferred licitly if at least one of the parents consents to assume the
responsibility. The term “a person who legitimately takes their place”
does not necessarily refer to judicial or legal adoption; on the other
hand, a nursemaid or a baby-sitter does not legitimately take the place
of the parents. The grandparents to whose care the child is entrusted
by parents who work abroad would legitimately take the place of the
parents. The term is therefore to be taken to mean a person or persons
to whom the parents entrust their child voluntarily and in a stable
manner or over a long period of time.
The question of consent becomes more problematic in the situation
contemplated by the second paragraph of this same canon: the baptism
of an infant in danger of death, but more of this infra. The basis of
this law is the recognition of the right of parents to be the first teachers
of their children, a right that is acknowledged by the United Nations
charter and the laws of many countries, including the Philippines. The
violation of this right and the possible consequent civil, and perhaps
even criminal, liability has led the CLSGBI Commentary to observe
that this absolutely prohibits baptizing children without this requisite
16 Diwa 33 (2008): 36-57

consent.19 Benedict XIV had affirmed that by the law of nature,

children are under the care of their parents as long as the children
cannot provide for themselves, and therefore it would be a great breach
of natural justice to baptize infants against the will of their parents as
to baptize an adult against his will.20
The case of the baptism of a minor, i.e., one who has not yet attained
the age of majority or 18 years but who is no longer an infant (meaning,
he has completed seven years) presents other complications. If he has
not yet completed seven years, then he is under the authority of the
parents, and this is the case treated in the previous paragraph. If he
is a minor but not anymore an infant, C.98.2 says that this person, in
the exercise of his rights, remains subject to his parents except in those
matters in which, by divine or ecclesiastical law, minors are exempt
from such authority. The matter of receiving the sacrament is one such
matter in which the non-infant minor is exempt from the authority of
his parents, according to C.852.1. Philippine civil law does not also
seem to have anything against the exercise by a minor of a fundamental
right such as this. Therefore, a minor who is not an infant does not
need the permission of his parents to receive the sacrament.21
4. Spes Fundata [C.868.1.2]. In general, the reception of the
sacrament presupposes for validity faith on the part of the recipient.
For infant baptism, this means the faith on the part of the Christian
community, or more concretely, the faith of the parents or of those who
lawfully take their place so that the child will be brought up, raised
and educated according to this faith, thus living out the baptismal
commitment. In other words, there must be a reasonably well-founded
hope that the child will be raised accordingly, otherwise the conferral of

19
CLSGBI Commentary no. 1701, p. 477.
20
Postremo Mense (28 Feb 1747), in Gasparri, ed., Fontes Codicis Juris Canonici
II, 62.
21
This is the conclusion reached by two American canonists as they considered
the question in an American context. Cf. Cuneo, in Vann and Donlon, eds., Roman
Replies and CLSA Advisory Opinions 1995, 62-66; Huels, in Vann and Donlon,
eds., Roman Replies and CLSA Advisory Opinions 1997, 62-64. Their opinion seems
reasonable and well grounded.
 A.N. Dacanáy, “Disputed Questions” 17
baptism will be a travesty and will not mean anything.22 The operative
question is what would constitute this well-founded hope, if the parents
are non-Catholics but who ask that the child be baptized in the Catholic
Church; and this cannot be determined by one absolute rule because
much depends on the circumstances of the case. In answering cases
of this kind, various decrees of the Holy Office have used terms such
as probabilis spes, rationabilis spes catholicae educationis. When a child
of non-Catholic parents is presented for baptism by Catholic sponsors,
but there appears no hope for the child to be raised in the Catholic
faith, the Holy Office forbade the conferral of baptism.23
In the absence of such a well-founded hope, baptism is to be
deferred in accordance with particular law, and the parents advised of
the reason for this. The canon however speaks only of the deferral of
baptism in such cases, mitigating the refusal that the CDF document
imposes.24
The following are some indications that such a well-founded hope
is deemed to be lacking and therefore when baptism ought to be
deferred:

22
Cf. J. J. Farraher, “What is the ‘Founded Hope’ Required for Baptism?”,
Homiletic and Pastoral Review 40 (1990), 68; B. Daly, “Canonical Requirements for
Parents in Cases of Infant Baptism according to the 1983 Code”, Studia Canonica
20 (1986), 409-439; L. Landini, “Baptismal Practices in Catholic Hospitals: A
Theological Reflection on Cc. 752 and 750 [1917]”, The Jurist 35 (1975), 296.
23
Collectanea de Propaganda Fide I, no. 457, cited by Woywood, A Practical
Commentary on the Code of Canon Law I, 336-337. On the other hand, the
Propaganda Fide in a decree of 31 Jan 1796 ruled that, even though the parents
are indifferent Catholics or otherwise of such a character as to hold out little hope
that the child would be brought up in the practices of the Catholic faith, the infant
should nevertheless be baptized by the priest. It seems that the hope of conversion
of such Catholics was the reason why this Roman dicastery was in favor of baptism.
Cf. Collectanea de Prop. Fide I, no. 625, cited by Woywood, A Practical Commentary
on the Code of Canon Law I, 336-337.
24
The CDF teaches that the baptism of infants is governed by two principles,
the second of which is subordinate to the first: (a) baptism which is necessary for
salvation is a sign and instrument of God’s prevenient love; considered on its own
merits the gift of these blessings for infants must not be put off; (b) there must be
an assurance that this gift will be able to grow through a genuine education in faith
and in Christian living. CDF Instruction (20 Oct 1980) no. 20, in AAS 72 (1980),
1137-1156.
18 Diwa 33 (2008): 36-57

(a) Both parents have not only given up the practice of

their religion, but may even be regarded as unbelievers,
and they do not wish to transfer their duty of bringing
up the child in the faith to some other person.25 In
this case, baptism is to be delayed. Where possible, the
pastor should arrive at this decision after consultation
with the community and with the consent of the
parents, and even with some diocesan authority.
(b) On the other hand, the marital state of the parents
and their refusal to attend the pre-baptismal catechesis
do not of themselves establish that the spes fundata is
lacking. If the parents do not attend mass, if they do
not express determination to see that their children go
to mass or attend some form of religious instruction, if
they are unwilling to participate in some basic catechesis
on the meaning of baptism and their responsibilities as
parents—in these circumstances, a well-founded hope
can hardly be seen to be present.26 If they have older
children who have not been raised as Catholics, it is
difficult how one can argue for spes fundata.

In any case, the decision to defer and a fortiori to refuse the

sacrament should not be reached hastily, and should be seen as a last
resort.27 In fact, the canon imposes two conditions for those who must

25
Hurley, “Directive on the Celebration of the Baptism of Children [Archdiocese
of Durban], 5-6, cited by Brendan Daly, “Canonical Requirements of Parents in
Cases of Infant Baptism According to the 1983 Code”, Studia Canonica 20 (1986),
431-432.
26
“Guidelines for Baptism of Infants: The First Stage of Christian Initiation
(Diocese of Oakland, 1984)”, p.5 cited by Brendan Daly, Canonical Requirements
of Parents in Cases of Infant Baptism According to the 1983 Code”, Studia Canonica
20 (1986), 431.
27
The Instruction on Infant Baptism does indeed speak of the possibility of the
refusal of the sacrament where assurances of the child’s Catholic upbringing are
“certainly non-existent”. Such a refusal however should not be understood to mean
bringing pressure to bear on the parents or a form of discrimination. It should
be seen as an “educational delay” aimed at helping the family grow in faith or to
become more aware of its responsibilities. If, however, despite the educational delay
 A.N. Dacanáy, “Disputed Questions” 19
decide to defer the sacrament: (a) the deferral must be in accord with the
prescripts of particular law, either of the diocese or of the ecclesiastical
province or region or of the episcopal conference.28 This requirement is
intended to prevent arbitrariness on the part of those who must make a
decision on this matter—that they must not be stricter than informed
on the one hand, and that they cannot simply baptize indiscriminately
any one presented for the sacrament on the other hand. (b) The parents
must have been apprized of this possibility and the reason for such a
deferral. It has been indicated above that this would be an excellent
catechetical opportunity and it must not be wasted. The parents must
be attracted to the Church rather than driven away or antagonized by
what may seem as an arbitrary and inconsiderate decision to refuse the
sacrament.
In circumstances such as these, it has been proposed by the CDF
itself in this 1970 response that the child be enrolled with a view to
its being baptized later.29 However, in the 1980 instruction, Pastoralis
actio, while affirming the need for dialogue with parents and their
adequate preparation for the baptism of their child, the CDF seems
to have reversed itself and rejected the proposal of a rite of enrollment
which might easily be confused with the sacrament of baptism.30
The desire of the parents to have their children baptized may already
be a first step in their pilgrimage towards the faith, and therefore one

and the pastoral steps taken during the period, it is certain that the child will not be
raised a Catholic, then the deferral of baptism may have to be indefinite, while, if at
all possible, leaving open the door to a future change of heart.
28
Testera, Canon Law Digest of the Philippine Catholic Church (1995) does not
contain any reference to local legislation on this matter; neither does the Acts and
Decrees of the Second Plenary Council of the Philippines (1991).
29
If the conditions are insufficient, there is the possibility of proposing to the
parents: the enrollment of the child with a view to his being baptized later; further
pastoral meetings as a way of preparing them for the rite of reception of their child
for baptism. DOL 2318. McManus observes that this 1970 response of the CDF
contemplated an enrollment of the child with the possibility of a rite of reception
of the child who would later be baptized, somewhat analogous to a period of
catechumenate during which the parents would receive Christian formation. CLSA
Commentary (1985), 627.
30
AAS 72 (1980), 1151.
20 Diwa 33 (2008): 36-57

should be extremely careful that this is not derailed.31 This may already
present a catechetical opportunity. On the one hand, it is important to
avoid unjustifiable severity; it is not unknown that some pastors who
are more zealous than informed refuse baptism because the parents are
not “active members of the parish” or because the parents are in an
irregular marriage situation. On the other, one must not lapse into
too comfortable a readiness to compromise on Christian principles,
reducing baptism into a kind of automatic social event. No bishop or
priest is, or should be, happy and gloat in delaying or refusing baptism.
His hope should always be that parents or people lawfully representing
parents will make a credible undertaking to bring up the child in the
Catholic religion.
5. Parental Consent to Infant Baptism In Periculo Mortis. An
infant of Catholic parents, indeed even of non-Catholic parents, who is
in danger of death is licitly baptized even against the will of the parents
[C.868.2]. The uncertainty of the Commission for the Revision of
Canon Law regarding this clause is evident from the tortuous route
and the various changes the formulation underwent. According to
the 1971 Schema, the infants are not licitly baptized if the parents are
explicitly averse.32 As reformulated in 1981, the clause was phrased
negatively: the babies are licitly baptized, provided the parents are not
expressly averse.33 An alternative formula was that the infant is licitly
baptized even when the parents are unwilling, unless there is a danger
that hatred for the religion would arise therefrom.34 The approved

31
The CDF suggests that in the case of “irregular” parents (polygamous
Christians, concubinaries, lawful spouses who have abandoned the practice of their
faith, parents who request baptism for their children for the sole reason of social
propriety) [a] they should be made conscious of their responsibilities; [b] the well-
founded hope could be given by some member of the family, godparents, or even by
the community of the faithful. A private reply of the CDF [13 July 1970] regarding
some mission problem in Africa, reproduced in CLD 7, 592.
32
Licite non baptizantur si ambo parentes aut qui eorum locum tenent sint
expresse contrarii. Communicationes (1971), 200.
33
Licite baptizatur dummodo non sint expresse contrarii. Communicationes
(1981), 223.
34
Licite baptizatur etiam invitis parentibus, nisi exinde periculum exsurget odii
in religionem. Communicationes (1981), 224.
 A.N. Dacanáy, “Disputed Questions” 21
version simply states that an infant in danger of death is licitly baptized
even if the parents are opposed.35
This canon, as well as its ancestors in the Code of 1917, can be taken
perhaps more sympathetically in the context of a literal understanding
of the almost physical necessity of baptism for salvation.36 It is assumed
that an infant who dies without baptism dies therefore in original sin.
For a correct understanding, in proper perspective, of this canon, the
following must be taken into account:

(a) It must be pointed out, however, that although the

Magisterium teaches that those who die in original sin
are excluded from the kingdom of heaven, it has not
taught that infants who die without baptism necessarily
die in original sin. Schillebeeckx concludes that the
fate of children who die without baptism is still an
open question.37 As a matter of fact, some theologians,
like Kasper for example, argue that the unbaptized
infants who die are encompassed by 1 Cor 7:14 — for
the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his
wife, and the unbelieving wife consecrated through her
husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean,

35
The present canon does not distinguish between Catholic, non-Catholic
Christian and non-Christian parents. The old Code did and many commentators
gave this explanation. If the parents are baptized, the obligation to baptize their
children is more stringent because they are, in virtue of the baptism they received,
subject to the law of the Church founded by God himself. However, if the parents
are non-Christians, the matter would be different altogether because they are not
subject to the law of the Church. Cf. for example, Alonzo Lobo in Commentarios al
Codigo de Derecho Canonico (Madrid, BAC, 1963), II, 122-124, nos.70-71.
36
For example, C. J. McFadden, Medical Ethics, 5th ed (Philadelphia: F. A.
Davis Company, 1961), 198.
37
Schillebeeckx, Christ: The Sacrament of the Encounter with God (New York:
Sheed and Ward, 1963), 146. As a matter of fact, without prejudice to the theological
speculation, the revised Rituale Romanum makes provision for the funeral of children
(of believers) who die before baptism. It points out though that the doctrine of the
necessity of baptism should not be weakened.
22 Diwa 33 (2008): 36-57

but as it is they are holy.38 An unbaptized child who

dies would be saved by the faith of its believing parents.
This seems to be quite logical, and it certainly removes
grief and anguish from concerned parents.
(b) The Church has consistently maintained the
natural rights of parents over their children.39 The
rights enunciated in the Charter of Rights, building on
the natural law and the doctrine of religious freedom
in Vatican II, certainly imply the rights of parents to
decide if their child is to be baptized Catholic or not
since the parents have the right to educate their children
in accord with their moral and religious convictions.
(c) The clause nisi ex inde periculum exsurgat odii in
religionem (unless there is a danger that hatred for religion
may arise therefrom) was suppressed on the motion of
Cardinal Florit on the ground that this aversion to
religion would be a lesser evil than not baptizing the
infant.40 Along similar lines, commentators on the old
Code had held that in danger of death, the spiritual
necessity of the child prevailed over parental rights. The
right of the infant to salvation is superior to the right
of the parents over the child.41 This opinion however is

38
W. Kasper, “Glaube und Taufe”, in Kasper, ed. Christsein ohne Entscheidung:
oder, Soll die Kirche Kinder taufen? (Mainz: Grunewald, 1970), 157-158.
39
The Charter of the Rights of the Family presented by the Holy See on 22 Oct
1983 and published in the L’Osservatore Romano 28 Nov 1983, p.4, resulted from the
1980 Synod of Bishops. Article 5. Since they have conferred life on their children,
parents have the original, primary and inalienable right to educate them; hence
they must be acknowledged as the first and foremost educators of their children. (a)
Parents have the right to educate their children in conformity with their moral and
religious convictions... (c) Parents have the right to ensure that their children are not
compelled to attend classes which are not in agreement with their own moral and
religious convictions... Article 7: Every family has the right to live freely its own
domestic religious life under the guidance of the parent.
40
Pontificia Commissio Codicis Juris Canonici Recognoscendo. Relatio (Roma:
Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1981), 201.
41
S. Woywood, A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, revised
by Callistus Smith (New York: Joseph F. Wagner, 1948), vol. I, 378. He refers to
 A.N. Dacanáy, “Disputed Questions” 23
not universal for the practice and the jurisprudence of
the Church have also qualified the duty of Christians
to baptize dying infants, where the common good of
the Church outweighed the spiritual benefits of the
sick child.42 While the terms in which the problem
is formulated may not be the most appropriate, the
pertinent point to be stressed here is the fact that even in
those terms, however infelicitous they may be, opinion
has been divided, and that there is reason on both sides
of the controversy. It would not be altogether pointless
to advert to the fact that, on the one hand, those who
insist on baptism do so on the conviction that baptism
is absolutely necessary for eternal salvation; on the
other hand, those who may appear to compromise and
willing to mitigate the necessity of baptism do so on the
conviction that God is able to work outside the visible
structures of the Church. This is hardly the place to
resolve the question.

In view of these, and the grammatical construction of the canon

(in danger of death, the infant is licitly baptized even against the wishes
of the parents), the second paragraph should be taken to mean that
a person who does baptize a dying infant against the wishes of the
parents does not violate the law of the Church.43 The canon can not
be construed to impose an obligation on Catholics to administer the

Postremo Mense, a 1747 constitution of Benedict XIV in which the pope states that
it would be a breach of natural justice to baptize an infant against the will of the
parents, but that in danger of death the infant may be baptized.
42
Cf. the reply of the Holy Office dated 28 Jan 1637: Baptismum posse conferri
infantibus in articulo mortis moraliter certo constitutionis, si tamen id fiat sine
scandalo. Gasparri, ed., Codicis Juris Canonici Fontes, vol.4, doc.no. 724, p.6; also
the instructions from the Propaganda Fide of 17 April 1777 advised missionaries
not to baptize infants when persecution of Christians might result: Caute tamen ac
prudenter in illis aut inquirendis aut baptizandis gerere se sacros ministros oportebit
ne in christianam religionem infidelium odium et saevitia in fideles conciterur. in
vol.7, doc.no.4575, p.108.
43
For a further study of the question, cf. J. W. Robertson, “Canons 967 and 868
and Baptizing Infants Against the Will of Parents”, The Jurist 45 (1985), 631-638.
24 Diwa 33 (2008): 36-57

sacrament on infants in danger of death under these conditions.44 The

canon does not prescribe baptism in these circumstances, it allows it;
a Catholic minister who does baptize an infant in this condition does
not act contrary to the laws of the Church.
6. The Baptism of Abandoned Infants and Aborted Fetuses
[Cc.870-871]. These two canons deal with infant baptism in special,
if somewhat extraordinary, cases: if the infant has been abandoned and
when the infant does not reach full term.
6.1 The Baptism of Abandoned Infants [C.870]. An abandoned
infant or a foundling is to be baptized unless diligent inquiry establishes
that it has already been baptized. The infants referred to here are babies
that are anonymously left on door steps or gates of private residences or
even churches and orphanages. The hope is presumably that the infant
will be found and taken care of.
The presumption established by the law is that the infant has not
yet been baptized and must therefore receive the sacrament soon—a
presumption that is probably grounded in the belief that if a mother
can abandon her child in such a cavalier manner, it is unlikely that
she would have taken measures to fulfill her religious obligation of
ensuring that her child is baptized. It seems presumed by the canon
that it is the person or family who will eventually “adopt” the infant
who must be responsible for the infant’s reception of the sacrament.
The presumption that the child has not yet been baptized can be
overturned by a diligent inquiry—perhaps some information has been
left in the crib or pinned to the clothes or in some other way attached
to the body of the infant. Although this is highly unlikely because the
parent will take all necessary measures to conceal her identity, aware
as she is of her legal liability for what she is doing. If there is no such
information, the presumption of the law stands and the infant is to be

The Canadian Bishops have approved the policy that in such cases, people act
44

with great prudence and reflection; that if the parents are opposed to the baptism, it
should not take place unless there are particularly attenuating circumstances. The
Pro Nuncio to Canada has declared that this policy is not contrary to the canon.
Woestman, Sacraments [Initiation, Penance, Anointing of the Sick] (Ottawa: St. Paul
University Press, 1992), 61.
 A.N. Dacanáy, “Disputed Questions” 25
baptized. The provision of this canon is different from its counterpart
in the old Code which prescribed a conditional baptism.
6.2 The Baptism of a Fetus [C.871: Aborted fetuses, if they are
alive, are to be baptized, in so far as this is possible. While the present
legislation of the Church concerning the baptism of fetuses has been
simplified, the Code of 1917 and the jurisprudence that developed
from it are still useful. It would be helpful to refer to the following as
pastoral guidelines:45

(a) No fetus shall be baptized while still enclosed in

his mother’s womb as long as there is probable hope
that baptism can be conferred after delivery. Should
it happen that baptism was conferred on the infant
while still in the womb because of the belief that he or
she was in danger of death, he or she must be baptized
again conditionally after delivery.46
(b) If the infant’s head emerges and the danger of death
impends, the infant shall be baptized on the head; if
later on he or she shall be delivered alive; he shall not
be baptized again.
(c) If some other part of the body emerges, if danger
of death impends, that member shall be baptized
conditionally; but in this case, if the infant shall
be alive at birth, he or she shall be baptized again
conditionally.
(d) If a pregnant mother dies and if it is certain that
the fetus delivered by those whose responsibility it
is to do so is alive, it shall be baptized absolutely; if
it is doubtful whether it is alive, it shall be baptized
conditionally.

45
Abbo and Hannan, The Sacred Canons: A Concise Presentation of the Current
Disciplinary Norms of the Church (London: B. Herder Book Co., 1952), I, 752.
46
For the details of the controversy and the various opinions, cf. Vermeersch,
Theologia Moralis III, no. 238; Prummer, Theologia Moralis III, no. 120, note 1.
26 Diwa 33 (2008): 36-57

If there is any doubt whether the fetus, or any other person, is dead,
then baptism can be conferred conditionally.47 If the fetus or person
is certainly dead, then the minister may not administer the sacrament.
The best approach in these cases is indicated in the Pastoral Care of the
Sick: Rites of Anointing and the Viaticum, no 224. “It may be necessary
to explain to the family of the person who is dead that sacraments
are celebrated for the living, not for the dead, and that the dead are
effectively helped by the prayers of the living.”
Care must be taken that every aborted fetus shall be baptized
without any condition, if it is known with certainty that it is alive, no
matter at what period of gestation it is aborted. If there is doubt that it
is alive, then it shall be baptized conditionally. The reason for this is the
long-held and common tradition in the Church that the fetus is human
from the first moment of conception,48 even when the fetus may not
have the human form that we are familiar with.49 Along this line and
for the same reason, it must therefore be asserted that eggs fertilized
in vitro, even before they are implanted must be considered human.
And without going into the details of the larger controversy, if these
fertilized eggs are to be disposed of, they are human and they are alive;
they must therefore be baptized.

47
Cf. O’Rourke, “Concrete Issues Facing Canon Lawyers Today in the Light
of Contemporary Developments in Biomedical Technology”, Studia Canonica 25
(1991), 29-38, where the author studies the meaning of death to help us understand
and apply the law.
48
Cappello, De Sacramentis II, no.159, p.139.
49
The old Roman Ritual on Baptism used to make a distinction between a
monstra that has a human form and one that does not have that form. There is no
doubt today that a human can only give birth to a human, however deformed that
infant may be.