Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

To Give a Defense

Home
Catholic
Did Pius V Condemn Cajetan on the Baptism of Desire?

Did Pius V Condemn Cajetan on the Baptism of Desire?

Last updated on: March 14, 2018 at 9:16 pm by Scott Eric Alt

Did Pius V Condemn Cajetan on the Baptism of Desire? 2018-03-14T21:16:11-04:00 Scott Eric Alt

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Pope Pius V, by El Greco

In a recent post, I noted that Cardinal Cajetan, in his commentary on the Summa III.68.11, posited that parents can supply baptism of desire to their children who die in the womb. “[C]hildren still within the womb of their mother,” Cajetan says, “are able to be saved … through the sacrament of baptism that is received, not in reality, but in the desire of the parents.”

Just four days later, Kevin Kukla at ProLife365—apparently in response to my post, though he did not cite it—noted that Pope Pius V had this passage removed from Cajetan’s commentary, which is not in doubt; but added that the pope actually condemned the proposition, which I do doubt.

Now, what’s at stake in all this is that Limbo apologists like Mr. Kukla claim that baptism of desire is only for adults on their own behalf; and that parents cannot suppply it vicariously to their children. This is the trick by which they concede baptism of desire while retaining their belief in Limbo. So it would bolster their argument if they could find a pope who condemned a statement about vicarious desire.

But what’s odd is that Mr. Kukla cites no source for his claim. He does not give the name of the document in which Pius V supposedly condemned this error; he quotes no text from Pius V. Very sloppy. The only text he does quote is a passage from Aquinas that seems to him to be at odds with Cajetan’s view. (The emphasis is his own.)

[B]y Baptism a man is ordained to the Eucharist, and therefore from the fact of children being baptized, they are destined by the Church to the Eucharist; and just as they believe through the Church’s faith, so they desire the Eucharist through the Church’s intention, and, as a result, receive its reality. But they are not disposed for Baptism by any previous sacrament, and consequently before receiving Baptism, in no way have they Baptism in desire; but adults alone have: consequently, they cannot have the reality of the sacrament without receiving the sacrament itself. (ST III Q. 73 a. 3)

Back in 2008, the dubious Dr. Taylor Marshall also claimed that Pius V condemned Cajetan on the baptism of desire; but he didn’t name any source either. Also very sloppy. That makes it difficult for responsible people to check out the truth of this.

So I go to the article on baptism in the Catholic Encyclopedia; there I read this:

It is true that some Catholic writers (as Cajetan, Durandus, Biel, Gerson, Toletus, Klee) have held that infants may be saved by an act of desire on the part of their parents, which is applied to them by some external sign, such as prayer or the invocation of the Holy Trinity; but Pius V, by expunging this opinion, as expressed by Cajetan, from that author’s commentary on St. Thomas, manifested his judgment that such a theory was not agreeable to the Church’s belief.

It names no specific document; and it would seem that, in the view of the editor, the redaction was enough, by itself, to constitute a condemnation. But this amounts to no more than an editor’s speculation about the pope’s rationale. How do we know that’s what Pius V was thinking? The answer is, we don’t. At one time the Church suppressed St. Faustina’s Diary; but that hardly constituted a dogmatic condemnation binding upon the faithful for all time. (Many Trads, who prefer God’s wrath to his mercy, wish that it were thus. But I digress.)

Next I turn to the Encyclopedia’s entry on Cajetan. There I find this:

The important relation between Cajetan and the Angelic Doctor was emphasized by Leo XIII, when by his Pontifical Letters of 15 October, 1879, he ordered the former’s commentaries and those of Ferrariensis to be incorporated with the text of the “Summa” in the official Leonine edition of the complete works of St. Thomas, the first volume of which appeared at Rome in 1882. This edition has restored a number of passages which St. Pius V desired to have expunged from the texts, the publication of which he ordered in 1570. The suppressed parts, now for the most part inoffensive, were largely in the nature of personal views and had no direct bearing on Thomistic doctrine as a system.

The article does not say whether Cajetan’s remarks about the baptism of desire was one of the passages restored by Leo XIII. (It’s probably safe to assume it was restored.) But if the Encyclopedia is to be believed, it is clear why the pope removed these passages in the first place. They were Cajetan’s “personal views,” not necessarily those of Aquinas; and Pius V did not wish anyone to confuse the two. Cajetan was writing a commentary on the Summa, after all. If Pius did have in mind the passage from Aquinas cited by Mr. Kukla, it may have been to show that Aquinas’s view was at odds with Cajetan’s, not that Cajetan’s view needed to be condemned.

But I have checked around, in Denzinger and elsewhere, and I can find no authoritative statement from Pius V condemning Cajetan’s views on anything. However, in Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus (cited in Denzinger), Pius V does condemn the view, taught by Baius, that original sin “habitually dominates the child.” That would mean that a child who dies before the age of reason, even though unbaptized, would “resist the law of God.” Pius V condemns this. Such a condemnation favors more those who doubt Limbo than those who teach it. Good man, St. Pius V. I find no bull condeming Cajetan.

This does not mean that Cajetan is right; it only means the Church permits the opinion. If someone knows where such a statement from Pius V is to be found, I would be happy for you to send it my way. But in either case, if Limbo apologists like Mr. Kukla and Dr. Marshall are going to make these claims, they really need to cite an authority that can be checked. That’s what I do.

***

Previous Post

April 25, 2016

Does Amoris Laetitia Tell Us Not to Judge?

Next Post

April 27, 2016 Pope Agrees to Discuss Infallibility With Hans Kung. This is What it Means.

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Abortion About Me Answers for Calvinists Answers to Media Fictions Answers to Objections Anti-Catholicism Apologetics Apostolic Succession Atonement Authority of the Church Baptism Benedictines Biblical Exegesis Blogging Book Reviews Books & Writing &c. Calvin's Institutes Capital Punishment Catholic Church Chastity Christology Church Fathers Church Social Doctrine Confession Contraception Conversion Stories Crusades Debates Depression & Suicide Deuterocanon Development of Doctrine Ecumenism English Language Eucharistic Adoration Exorcism Extra Ecclesiam Fisks & Rebuttals Freedom of Religion Freedom of Speech Fundamentalism Gender Politics Gender Theory Good Works Homosexuality Humor Idolatry Immaculate Conception In the News Inquisition ISIS Islam Just for Fun Just War Justification LCWR Limbo Liturgical Abuse Liturgical Year Magisterium Marriage and Family Mary Mortal Sin New Evangelization NFP Papacy Papal Documents Papal Infallibility Personal Narrative Politics Pope Francis Pope Francis Derangement Syndrome Population Control Praying to the "Dead" Priesthood Primacy of Peter Protestant Denominations Purgatory Radical Islam Radical Traditionalists Real Presence Right to Conscience RIght to Life Saints Same-Sex "Marriage" Seven Quick Takes Social Justice Social Media Sola Scriptura Spirit of Vatican II SSPX The Eucharist The Mass The Resurrection Traditionalism Vatican II Year of Mercy

Select a Month August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 November 2018 October 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 April 2018 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 May 2013 April 2013 February 2013 January 2013

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Which city is known as the "City of Palms" in the Bible?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Damascus Jericho Jerusalem Bethany