As I mentioned earlier, over the summer God’s providence brought me into contact with a group of people dedicated to sharing the story of Baby Brian Gallagher. The circumstances of Baby Brian’s short life raise the question of babies who die before baptism and baptism of desire, and the group asked me to write up a one page summary of the argument I present in my book Baptism of Desire and Christian Salvation. Of course, for the full story–and much else besides–buy the book! What I wrote is not intended as a full pastoral response to those who have lost a child too soon, but a very brief sketch of the theological issues involved.
Theologians have a precise mission within the Church. Our task is not to “create” the truth, but to use the tools of reason and study to understand better what God has revealed to us. When it comes to salvation, theologians don’t “decide” what the Church believes; we merely try to express with greater clarity what we find in Christian revelation.
Good theologians, then, must be humble and cautious in what they claim. Historically, theologians have found the question of what happens to babies who die before baptism particularly difficult. We know that baptism is necessary for salvation (John 3:5) because baptism is the unique way Jesus has revealed for us to participate in his death and resurrection (Romans 6:3-5). At the same time, the doctrine of baptism of desire has found strong support among theologians and in the Church’s official teaching. Baptism of desire does not deny the necessity of baptism or create an alternative to the sacrament. Instead, the doctrine means that those who desire the sacrament but are prevented by circumstances beyond their control from receiving it can still obtain baptism’s effect—rebirth to eternal life.
Historically, most—but not all—theologians have had trouble seeing how baptism of desire could apply in the case of infants who are too young to formulate a desire of their own. After a decade studying baptism of desire, however, I believe that these theologians have tended to leave out a decisive piece of evidence: our practice of the sacrament of baptism. The key theological principle that has been neglected up until now is known as lex orandi—lex credendi, which means “the law of prayer is the law of belief.” In other words, the way we celebrate the sacraments is itself a guide to what is true. In this case, the Church’s firmly-established practice invites us to look more deeply into how to understand the desire for baptism in regard to infants.
In the past, theologians have tended to think abstractly and individualistically about what desire means, but our practice of infant baptism tells a different story. When an infant is baptized, his or her parents are able to answer for their child. This shared parent-child intention expresses a “desire” sufficient to receive the sacrament. If infants were truly incapable of the desire necessary for salvation, we would not be able to baptize them to begin with. In time, of course, children’s desires will grow and take on directions of their own, but infant baptism recognizes the human truth that, at the beginning, a child’s desires are contained within those of parents acting for that child’s good.
Death itself is a reminder that even babies are touched by original sin and need salvation. Currently, the Church encourages us to entrust babies who die unbaptized to the mercy of God. Understandably, this response can feel vague and insufficient—especially for parents who would have baptized a child who lived only a few days or hours longer. Right now, I can speak only as a private theologian in offering my opinion. But, if my argument is correct, the doctrine of baptism of desire can and does apply in the case of Christian parents who desire baptism for their child. Whether a child is taken from them in utero or after birth, baptism of desire gives us firm grounds—rooted in revelation, tradition, and the Church’s sacramental practice—to be confident of their child’s salvation.
If you haven’t done so already, consider subscribing to this blog:
Tony Lusvardi, S.J. 
You’re doing an excellent job arguing for this. While it’s very likely that what you are arguing is the case – thanks be to God – I’m not sure it’s helpful in the current climate of rage for doctrinal development – to go to the step of confidently teaching and proclaiming this and going beyond “probability.”
LikeLike