Baptism and Salvation
By Fr. Christopher Hunter
On the question of Baptism of Desire
If I, as a Roman Catholic, were to assert, in all seriousness, that Our Blessed Mother was not free from personal sin during her lifetime, I rather think that I would shock my fellow Catholics. Likewise, if I were to state that Jesus Christ did not desire the salvation of all men or that He did not render vicarious atonement to God for the sins of men through His sufferings, I not only would offend but would, no doubt, be called before Church authorities to answer for why I was making such rash statements contrary to the consistent teaching of the Church. Indeed, my very orthodoxy as a Catholic would be called into question for saying things that approach heresy.
Such a reaction would be both understandable and justified in view of the fact that Catholics have traditionally held the very opposite opinions handed down by Holy Mother Church for our instruction. However, to call into doubt the above teachings of the Church would be no more rash than to question the teaching of baptism of desire since they all possess the same degree of theological certainty.
In dogmatic theology there are grades or degrees of certitude. De fide, of the Faith, is a truth defined by a solemn judgment of faith by the pope or a general council. Next in order is a truth or doctrine on which the infallible teaching authority of the Church has finally decided and which is to be accepted with a faith based solely on the authority of the Church. This is called fides ecclesiastica and is as infallible as dogma proper. Third in rank is what is called in Latin sententia fidei proxima. In his book Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott tells us that "a teaching proximate to Faith is a doctrine which is regarded by theologians generally as a truth of Revelation, but which has not yet been finally promulgated." Now the Church's teaching that there is a baptism of desire is defined sententia fidei proxima, which, according to the definition given above, "is regarded by theologians generally as a truth of Revelation..."
Now our friends up in Still River, Massachusetts seem to get great mileage from the fact that the Church has never defined this teaching in a solemn manner which, they claim, is a kind of "proof" that the doctrine is itself questionable and, by implication, shows that the Holy Ghost is protecting the Spouse of Christ from making such a grave blunder as to teach it formally. All of which, of course, is nonsense. Generally speaking, the Church does not teach through extraordinary pronouncements. It is enough that the Church propose God's Revelation through its ordinary magisterium, e.g., encyclicals. The Church generally makes dogmatic pronouncements only when there is a serious reason requiring this manner of teaching. Such a case would be when a truth is being questioned or challenged and the Faithful need precision on the point to prevent confusion or even denial of the doctrine. Otherwise, the Church's ordinary magisterium is sufficient.1
Many truths which Catholics hold without question have never been formally defined because there is no reason to do so, several examples of which were cited at the beginning of this article.
With regard to the degree of certitude mentioned above, it must be pointed out that certain censures are imposed on those who are rash enough to oppose a teaching proximate to the Faith. Those who do are guilty of propositio herese proxima or a proposition proximate to heresy "which signifies that the proposition is opposed to a truth which is proximate to Faith" (Ott, Page 10). In other words, you're getting awfully close to denying a formal truth of the Catholic Faith. This is obviously dangerous ground to be on, to say the least.
It is not surprising that the Church's teaching on baptism of desire should be so protected by the kind of censure mentioned above when one realizes that it is a well-grounded and long-established belief. Its origin can be traced to the early centuries of the Church, its chief witnesses for tradition being St. Ambrose and St. Augustine. In his funeral oration for Valentinian, who died a catechumen, St. Ambrose said:
"But I hear that you grieve because he did not receive the sacrament of baptism. Tell me now what else have we if not desire and will? He in very truth had this wish that, before he came to Italy, he should be initiated into the Church and immediately baptized by me.... Had he not then the grace which he desired so earnestly? Did he not have the grace he demanded? Certainly, for he who demands receives. Why did not he who had your spirit, receive your grace? But if it is a fact that because the sacraments are not solemnly celebrated they have no value, then the martyrs if they were only catechumens would not receive the crown of glory; for no one is crowned who is not initiated. But if people are absolved in their own blood, then this man's piety and will absolved him."
Likewise did St. Augustine comment:
"I find that not only suffering for the sake of Christ can replace that which is lacking in Baptism, but also Faith and conversion of the heart, if perhaps that shortness of the time does not permit the celebration of the mystery of Baptism."
"In the early period of Scholasticism", Ott tells us, "St. Bernard of Clairvoux, Hugo of St. Victor and the Summa Sententiarum defended the possibility of baptism of desire." Likewise, does St. Thomas defend it in his Summa, calling it "baptism of the Spirit". And contrary to the assertion that the Council of Trent did not deal with this question, let it be stated that it most certainly did and defended it! In the fourth chapter of the sixth session, in speaking of the necessity of baptism, it says that men cannot obtain original justice "except by the laver of regeneration or its desire." The Catholic Encyclopedia tells us that "the same doctrine is taught by Pope Innocent III and the contrary propositions are condemned by Popes Pius V and Gregory XII in proscribing the 31st and 33rd propositions of Baius."
A defense used by those who insist on denying baptism of desire is a reference to three statements made by various popes which seem to indicate the contrary. These statements are of, respectively, Pope Innocent III in 1215, Pope Boniface VIII in 1302, and Pope Eugene IV in 1441.
To begin with, we have already seen how Innocent III defended the doctrine which, apparently, does not give its detractors cause for reflection.
Secondly, Pope Pius IX, who himself reaffirmed as a dogma that "...out of the Apostolic, Roman Church no one can be saved...", nevertheless said on August 10, 1863 in his encyclical Quanto Conficiamur:
"We all know that those who are invincibly ignorant of our religion and who nevertheless lead an honest and upright life, can, under the influence of divine light and divine grace, attain to eternal life; for God Who knows and sees the mind, the heart, the thoughts, and the dispositions of every man, cannot in His infinite bounty and clemency permit anyone to suffer eternal punishment who is not guilty through his own fault."
Thirdly, in his book, Is There Salvation Outside the Catholic Church?, Father J. Bainvel, S. J. tells us:
"When the Church insists that outside her pale there is no salvation, she does not intend thereby to pass judgment on individual cases, nor on the exceptions to the rule, nor on whatever, to employ the language of philosophy, is connected per accidens (by accident) with the general economy of salvation. What she does mean to say is that the Church is essentially the society of salvation, and that there is none other. For he who desires eternal life must enter her fold.... We must understand our axiom in the sense of referring to the per se, not to the per accidens; to the general economy, and not to individual souls."
Lastly, it is significant that the three dogmatic statements referred to above were all made before the Protestant Reformation. This is significant because, with the advent of Protestantism, the doctrine of invincible ignorance comes into play. Since the times of Luther, many generations of non-Catholics have come and gone, many of whom, in all honesty, believed they were living according to the will of God. Such individuals are not held accountable for their state since they have not rejected the Truth as a deliberate act of the will; believing instead that they were already in possession of it. We see this, in fact, in the statement of Pius IX quoted above. In addition, this same pontiff said: "Nevertheless, equally certain is it to be held that those who suffer from invincible ignorance of the true religion, are not for this reason guilty in the eyes of the Lord."
So we see, in fact, that there is little comfort to be gained from the dogmatic statements used to deny baptism of desire.
Knowing all this, it is little wonder that Father Feeney was summoned to Rome to give an account of himself. Called three times to explain why he denied what has always been consistently affirmed by the Church, he refused to go each time. Finally, after his third refusal, he was excommunicated in 1952 for disobedience. Followers of Father Feeney sometimes deny that he ever was excommunicated. When confronted with the official document showing that he was, they then assert that "it was not done according to canonical form". Such defenses, of course, wear thin when one realizes that Rome had every reason to act as it did considering the serious nature of the error he was teaching.
His followers claim Father Feeney was reconciled with the Church. Just how this was done is not certain, one version being that he went into a room which had written on a blackboard the Athanasian Creed which he was asked to read. Having done so, and agreeing with it, he was thus reconciled and his excommunication was later lifted.
Oddly enough, Father Feeney was reconciled with a church that is a fruit of modernism, the very error his followers claim he was opposing by his denial of baptism of desire.
1. Ironically, the followers of Fr. Leonard Feeney insist so strongly on their position that they obviously wish their teaching were a dogma!
Current Issue
