charitable work of obligation, and the Church's right to confer it is per se unquestionable when even one of the parents is already baptized. But circumstances may make the proceeding inexpedient or even unlawful. Respect must be shown for parental rights, guaranteed by the natural law and fully recognized by the Catholic Church. Care must be taken also not to arouse hostility by highhanded action, as well as to prevent the sacrament being profaned by the unconscious, or perhaps even conscious, neglect of their obligations by the children when they grow up afterwards in non-Catholic or anti-Catholic surroundings. Parents may be unable to exercise their right, or may lose it by their own evil conduct or by the fact that the child is in danger of death and eternal damnation ; but even then the other considerations mentioned may still hold. And, since all these things vary so much, it need cause no surprise that the policy of the Church has varied also. Up to the eighteenth century, the tendency was to allow baptism to be conferred when one of the parents consented, even though the chances were very slight that the child would be educated as a Catholic.1 Then, for a century or so, a reaction set in, and the prospects of a future Catholic upbringing were rather rigidly insisted on. One of the means recommended was the removal of the child from the care of his non-Catholic parents; but the opposition of the civil law rendered it to a great extent impracticable. And so, for the last hundred years or so, there has been a marked reversion towards the earlier standard. Consent of one parent and a fair hope of Catholic education was all that was demanded: and, as will be seen, the new Code has set its seal on the development :

'1. A child of infidel parents [or heretical or schismatical parents also (751)] is baptized lawfully, even against their wishes, when he is in such danger of death that one can prudently foresee that he will die before attaining the use of reason' (750, § 1). The eighteenth-century contention that present and imminent danger of death is required gives place, therefore, to the more liberal view. And, it will be noticed, the canon speaks of 'lawfulness,' not of obligation.' To have the latter, the condition expressed in the si occasio se obtulerit of the

6

1 Cf. reply of Clement VIII, 12th Oct., 1600: If it be not certain that they will apostatize, let them be baptized; if it be, propose the query again.'

Maynooth Statutes must first be fulfilled. Without it, the consideration already advanced might render the baptism at least inexpedient.

6

2. Outside danger of death, if provision is made for his Catholic education [the child] is lawfully baptized, 1°, if the parents or guardians, or at least one of them, consent; 2°, if there be no parents (father, mother, grandfather, grandmother) or guardians, or if they have lost their right over him or can in no way exercise it' (750, § 2).

2

The Rites and Ceremonies.-The same rules hold as before on the rite (Latin and Eastern, Catholic and nonCatholic), on the use of water blessed for the purpose, on baptism by infusion or immersion, according to the approved Ritual books of the different Churches (756-8). Private baptism may be conferred in danger of death: if by a minister who is neither priest nor deacon, only the essentials are to be employed; if by a priest or deacon, then, time permitting, all the ceremonies that follow the essential rite are of obligation (759, § 1). The latter statement used to be denied by prominent authorities, but (except for the mention of the deacon, which is entirely new) was given correctly in the Maynooth Statutes. With the exception given below, ceremonies omitted in private baptism are to be supplied as soon as possible in the church. With the same exception, they are to be supplied in conditional baptism when they were omitted in the first function; when they were not so omitted, they may be employed or not, as the priest prefers (759, § 3, 760). It used to be recommended always that, when the parents insisted on a pagan name, the priest should add the name of a saint, at least in a low voice; now he is simply told to add it, and to record both in the baptismal register (761).

3

These modifications are all of minor importance. But there are two matters on which there has been a radical change. And we are glad to notice that the Irish standard has been adopted for the Universal Church.

At the Maynooth Synod of 1875, the Irish Bishops asked for permission (to be delegated to their priests) to use in the baptism of adults, especially in case of converts,' a shorter formula than the one prescribed in the

1 Can. 62.

3 Can. 54.

2 e.g., Lehmkuhl, ii. 95.

4 For the documents in connexion with both questions, see the Appendix to the Maynooth Statutes (1900), pp. 11-14.

The

Roman Ritual. In reply, they were granted permission to use the formula prescribed for infant baptism.1 concession was for five years, and was renewed as occasion arose, until finally it was granted in 1894 without any time limit. In each and every rescript, they were asked to bring matters back gradually to the standard of the Roman Ritual. The recommendation would now be out of place. The new Code has itself authorized departure from the standard of the Roman Ritual. It assures us that the Ordinary of the place may, for grave and reasonable cause, allow the ceremonies prescribed for infant baptism to be employed in the baptism of adults (755, § 2). In the Synod of 1900 the Irish Bishops went further. They asked for a much shorter formula, such as is generally employed in England by virtue of a concession from the Holy See,' to be used in the conditional baptism of Protestants and other heretics converted to the Church.' The American Bishops had already asked for the favour and had been refused." The Irish were more fortunate. On the 30th January, 1905, the petition was granted for ten years, and was renewed for another ten years on the 17th January, 1916.1 There will never be any need for them to apply for it again. Canon 759, § 2, states that ' outside danger of death the Ordinary of the place cannot permit private baptism'; but it adds 'except there be question of heretics who in their adult age are baptized conditionally.' And the two subsequent paragraphs relax in favour of the latter, the obligation of supplying in church the ceremonies omitted on the present occasion as well as those omitted at the time they were baptized in heresy (759, § 3, 760).

The Sponsors. From the point of view of the general public, the changes in regard to the sponsors are by far the most important. The canons do not cover the whole ground, but practically all of them effect a radical modification in any portion of it they do cover. It is stated, however, as before, that not more than two sponsors are to be employed in any circumstances (764), and that it is their duty to regard their spiritual child as handed over to their care for ever, and to see that, in everything that

1 1st September, 1876.

2 Appendix, p. 13.

3 In 1866.

4 See I. E. RECORD (March, 1916), Fifth Series, vol. vii. p. 285.

concerns religion, he fulfils all through life the promises he made when he was solemnly baptized (769).

It goes without saying that, when possible at all, there should be a sponsor at solemn baptism (762, § 1). But it is prescribed in addition that there should be one also at private baptism, when he can be easily secured, and that the person so acting contracts spiritual relationship.1 If he is not employed then, he must be later on when, and if, the ceremonies are supplied, but in this case no spiritual relationship is contracted (762). In the case of conditional baptism, the same sponsor that has acted already should, if possible, be secured: otherwise no sponsor is necessary. And if, as a matter of fact, there is a sponsor at both baptisms, there is no spiritual relationship arising from either function unless the same individual acts on both occasions (763).

It was always the rule that, if a person were to be a valid sponsor at all, he should fulfil certain conditionshave the intention of acting, be among those 'nominated' if any were nominated, and touch the child at the time of baptism, or shortly before or after. Also, certain classes were excluded from lawful sponsorship-some of them notorious public sinners, others quite the reverse. These regulations have been made more strict. Some who previously were merely forbidden' to act are now declared 'incapable.' For valid action five conditions are required, for lawful action five more :

I. For validity, i.e., in order to incur the obligations and secure the privilege at all, the intending sponsor must:

1o. Be baptized, have attained the use of reason, and intend to assume the obligation. The old rule. When a mistake is made regarding the identity of the child, the old principles apply.

2o. Belong to no heretical or schismatical sect, nor be by a sentence, whether condemnatory or declaratory, excommunicated or legally infamous ' or debarred from legal acts,' 2 nor be a deposed or degraded cleric. A new regulation. Most of these were forbidden' already, but were not declared incapable.'

3°. Not be father or mother or husband or wife of the baptized. New, so far as the validity is concerned.

etc.

1 Contrast, e.g., Ballerini-Palmieri, vi. 652; Lehmkuhl, ii. 994 (and note),

2 This disqualification is explained by canon 2256.

4°. Be nominated by parents, guardians or minister. The old rule. And the old controversies regarding cases in which more than two are nominated still continue.

5°. Physically touch, personally or by proxy, the child at the moment of baptism, or take him from the sacred font or from the hands of the baptizer.' The same regulation as before.1

II. For liceity, i.e., to avoid sin in becoming sponsor, a person must:

1°. Be fourteen years old, unless the minister has fair cause for allowing one to act at an earlier age. An innovation.

2o. Not be, for notorious crime, even though there has been no sentence, excommunicated or debarred from 'legal acts' or legally infamous: nor interdicted nor publicly known as a criminal nor infamous by act.' The spirit of the regulation is old, but the exact specifications new. 3°. Know the elementary truths of faith-the old rule.

4°. Not be a novice or professed member of any religious Order or Congregation, with vows perpetual or temporary (to be renewed when the period has elapsed), solemn or simple-unless, in case of necessity, with the express permission of at least the local Superior. Changed in some slight respects. The class is extended, but so is the facility for securing permission.

5°. Not be a cleric in sacred Orders, unless his Ordinary grants permission expressly. As a general law, this is quite new some local Councils had already prescribed it in the case of priests.

priest is in doubt whether a prospective sponsor belongs to any of the classes mentioned, he is ordered to consult his Ordinary, if he has time to do so.

Lastly-an important change-the sponsors, as well as the minister, contract a spiritual relationship that invalidates marriage with the baptized, but neither the relationship nor the resulting impediment extends to anyone else. The well-known phrases Baptizans baptizatus baptizatique parentes and Levans levatus levatique parentes must, therefore, be modified; the second two words must be omitted in both cases. We may take it for granted, too, that we have heard the last of the 'subsequent impediment

1 See St. Alphonsus, vi. 146; Marc ii. 1484 (almost word for word the same as the canon).

2 The Congregation of Rites had already decided (15th Febr., 1887) that a nun might act in case of necessity.