Under the heading of “No substitute for Baptism,” John P. Murphy wrote:
At this point the reader may have a
difficulty. It can be put in this way: Is it not true that Mary Magdalen was a saint
from that moment in which Christ forgave her because she loved much? And yet we
are not aware that she was then baptised. It is not true that the Holy
Innocents did not receive the Sacrament of Baptism? Also, that some of the canonised
saints were only catechumens, and so forth? Now, it will promote tidiness and
clarity of thought if we deal with this difficulty by proposing to ourselves
these two questions, and by answering them: First, Has Christ instituted any
other positive means of regeneration besides baptism, either by way of addition
to or exception from the law of baptism? Secondly, Is it not possible that,
from the very nature of things which precedes all positive law and is allowed
for in positive law, it might happen that a person could receive justification without
the actual reception of the Sacrament of Baptism?
We answer the first of these questions
in the negative. We cannot admit any other means of salvation positively
instituted by Christ, for the very good reason that his positive law has
provided one means and only one. If, therefore, any theories are advanced on
the question of salvation which involve the recognition of some means of salvation
positively instituted by Christ, other than baptism, such theories must immediately
be rejected as at least erroneous. Attempts of this kind have been made from
time to time. The best known is that of the theologian Cajetan, who expressed
the opinion that in the case of infants dying in the mother’s womb, the prayers
of the parents could secure the justification and salvation of the children. He
thought that a blessing of the child in the womb, given in the name of the
Blessed Trinity, would secure this. This opinion was regarded with great
disapproval by the theologians of the Council of Trent, and though it was not
actually condemned, Pope Pius V ordered that it should be expunged from the
works of Cajetan. A somewhat similar view was held by Gerson, Durand, Bianchi,
and others. Even St Bonaventure seems to have nodded; for he says that an
infant would be deprived of grace if unbaptised, unless God made it the object
of some special privilege. (In IV Sent., I iv, dist. iv.)
The fundamental error of all such
views is that they introduce, without warrant of any kind from Revelation, a
second means of salvation positively instituted by Christ. They demand the recognition
of what we might call a pseudo-Sacrament. If, for instance, such a rite as
blessing an infant in its mother’s womb is sufficient for its justification,
then we must admit a pseudo-Sacrament positively instituted by Christ, by way
of addition to or exception from the law of baptism which he has made. To admit
this is gratuitous, as it is not mentioned by Christ, and it is erroneous, as
it is plainly against the universality of the words of Christ.
We must conclude
then that infants dying in their mother’s womb do not enjoy the Beatific Vision
in Heaven. At the same time they do not suffer from
what is called the pain of sense. According to St Thomas, they enjoy a real
happiness which consists, not indeed in that vision of God which grace alone
makes possible, but in the natural love and knowledge of God. (In IV Sent.,
I ii, dist. xxx, Q. II, art 2, ad 5.)
We answer our second question in the
affirmative. It can happen that a person receives justification without actually
receiving the Sacrament of Baptism. And it can happen in one of two ways:
either, 1. by Martyrdom, or 2, by Charity. (John P. Murphy, “The Sacrament of
Baptism,” in The Teaching of the Catholic Church: A Summary of Catholic
Doctrine, ed. George D. Smith, 2 vols. [New York: The MacMillan Company,
1927, 1959], 2:778-79, emphasis in bold added)
