257. The need for the parents’ will in infant Baptism
257. THE NEED FOR PARENTS’ WILL IN INFANT BAPTISM
Should infants ever be baptized without their parents’ will, or even against it?
Whether children of Jews or other unbelievers should be baptized against the will of their parents?
It is written in the Decretals, quoting the Council of Toledo: In regard to the Jews the holy synod commands that henceforward none of them be forced to believe . . . for such are not to be saved against their will but willingly. . . .
I answer that the children of unbelievers either have the use of reason or they have not. If they have, then they already begin to control their own actions in things that are of divine or natural law. And therefore of their own accord and against the will of their parents they can receive Baptism, just as they can contract marriage. . . .
If, however, they have not yet the use of free will, according to the natural law they are under the care of their parents as long as they cannot look after themselves. For which reason we say that even the children of the ancients were saved through the faith of their parents. Wherefore it would be contrary to natural justice if such children were baptized against their parents’ will, just as it would be if one having the use of reason were baptized against his will. Moreover under the circumstances it would be dangerous to baptize the children of unbelievers, for they would be liable to lapse into unbelief by reasons of their natural affection for their parents. Therefore it is not the custom of the Church to baptize the children of unbelievers against their parents’ will (III,68,10).
St. Thomas’ “no” answer to this question is based not only on his respect for free will but also on his respect for Baptism.
Scripture tells us that we must “believe and be baptized” to be saved (Acts 18:8). As faith cannot be forced, neither should Baptism.
In fact, faith cannot be forced. That is why the attempt should not be made: it would be a lie. The Koran too teaches that: “There must be no compulsion in matters of religion.” Behaviors can be forced, beliefs cannot.
We have seen in #256, above, that the faith of the parents is the necessary free ingredient in infant Baptism. If this ingredient is not there, the Baptism is false. The attempt to baptize by force mistakes Baptism as a kind of magic.
If, however, a child of unbelieving parents is of the age of reason, and can make intelligent and free choices, he should be baptized if he asks for it, even against the will of his parents, for the very same reason that he should not be baptized if he is not of the age of reason: because of respect for free will. St. Thomas says this also applies to Matrimony, which must also be free and not forced. (Parentally arranged marriages, by the way, can be either forced, and therefore false marriages, or freely consented to and thus true marriages.) If there is no real “I” in “I do”, there is no real “do” either.
(It is not clear when the “age of reason” begins, but it is clear that a two-year-old has not attained it and that a ten-year-old has. It probably begins around the time schooling begins, at about five.)
Notice the presence of the same idea of “spiritual heredity” that was spoken of in #256 also in St. Thomas’ very Biblical saying that the children of the ancients “were saved through the faith of their parents”. This is the principle he appeals to in condemning the baptizing of infants against their parents’ will no matter what their parents believe.
Thus we have arguments (1) from principles of the revealed theology of Baptism, (2) from principles of natural law (the dependence of children on parents), (3) from a principle common to both (free will), and (4) from the likely practical consequences later in the lives of the unwillingly-baptized children. Principles come first but practical consequences count too.