Unbaptized infant burial rules

[Jack3]

What are they in the Catholic Church, with citation?
Can they be buried in the same part of the cemetery as baptised people, ie on sacred ground?

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

Yes.

[Stella]

When I googled the question I came upon an interesting account from an archaeological group excavating old graves from medieval Europe.

"Medieval society was so concerned with the fate of the unbaptised (Gilchrist, 2012, p. 185) that the Church introduced regulations in the 13th century to minimise their exclusion from consecrated ground. If the survival of a baby was uncertain, it became the duty of any layperson to baptise (in articulo mortis). Baptism in the womb was prohibited (Hausmair, 2017, p. 213; Orme, 2001, p. 124), but any emerging limb would enable the ceremony to be conducted (Charrier & Clavandier, 2019, p. 194; Hausmair, 2017, pp. 211–213; Shahar, 1990, p. 49). The rules regarding the correct use of the words were strictly enforced. Confirmation of the validity of emergency baptism would depend on the clergy, with their judgement based on the testimonies of persons present. If the rites were deemed to have been incorrectly recited, were unnecessary, or administered to a dead child, the baptism was declared void (Hausmair, 2017, p. 213).

Inevitably, some infants were stillborn and therefore could not be welcomed into the Christian community (Gardela & Duma, 2013, p. 326). Catholic Church Law (Canon 1239) dictated that the unbaptised were strictly prohibited from burial in consecrated ground (Donnelly & Murphy, 2008, p. 212; Woywod, 1957, II, p. 51). They were instead treated in the same manner as the excommunicated, murderers, and suicides (Gilchrist, 2012, p. 6; Orme, 2001, pp. 118–124). This led to unbaptised infants being buried in unconsecrated areas, for instance, outside the fences of churchyards, or beneath the floors of houses (Garattini, 2007, p. 194; Gilchrist, 2012, pp. 6,21–22). Parents were thus left with the horrifying prospect that their infants would be separated both physically and spiritually from the rest of the community dead (Charrier & Clavandier, 2019, p. 193; Hausmair, 2017, p. 211)."

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ful ... h%20Law%20(Canon%201239,%2C%201957%2C%20II%2C%20p.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

Please note that the above laws are no longer in force.

[Stella]

Please note that the above laws are no longer in force.

Oh yes I should have specified that bit.

[Jack3]

Yes.

Can you share a citation/source please?

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

Show me a current law that says they can’t.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

That's not a brushoff answer, by the way. If someone is telling you otherwise, it's on him to show you that there's canonical law against it. You don't have to prove a negative.

[Jack3]

I saw a video on social media in which a mom complained that their infant was denied Christian burial/ could be buried only in a place for public sinners etc. I am trying to respond to that

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

She ran into someone who didn't know what he was doing. IMHO.

[Jack3]

Okay, but is there some kind of document?

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

Remember the difficulty of proving a negative? There are all sorts of things one can do that aren't documented. Unless one can find a document forbidding it, the presumption is that it's licit.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

FWIW, I checked the Code of Canon Law and there is no such provision there.

[Doom]

There are two principles one could use

Whatever isn't explicitly allowed is forbidden, this is called "The Regulative Principle"

Anything that isn't explicitly forbidden is allowed this is called "The Normative Principle"

In general, the Regulative Principle is used by Christians of the Reformed tradition, which includes the vast majority of evangelicals and fundamentalists. This way of thinking is where you get such bizarre, anachronistic arguments such as "nowhere in the New Testament is Christmas explicitly mentioned, it is wrong to celebrate Christmas, Christmas trees are not explicitly mentioned by name in the Bible, therefore it is wrong to have a Christmas tree"

Catholics, Orthodox, and liturgical Protestants like Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, etc use the Normative Principle, this is why when considering a custom like Christmas trees, which didn't even arise until the 16th century, they ask "Is there anything in the Bible against it?" And concluding that there isn't, allow the practice to proceed.

It seems clear to me, and I don't understand why it isn't apparent to so many others, that The Regulative Principle is impossible to abide by, it is not possible to create a definitive list of every single practice, every single custom, every single idea, that is acceptable. No one can possibly live this way, the only way to abide by The Regulative Principle in practice is to apply it hypocritically so that whatever you want to do is fine but whatever someone you dislike wants to do is wrong.

The way people actually live in a reality in which there is an infinite number of possible actions one can take, is to ask yourself "Is there a law against it, does it violate even the spirit of a law, does it break one of the Ten Commandments, is there is a provision in Canon Law against it? Does it offend common decency? If it is not flat-out immoral, is there a social convention that discourages such behavior?" If the answer to all of these questions is "no", then it is fair to conclude that the action is acceptable. I added the "social convention" part because there is a whole host of morally neutral behavior which people avoid because it annoys, offends or disgusts others. It probably isn't immoral, on a general principle, to take your shoes and socks off and cut your toenails during Mass. But if you try it, people will not like it because they find such behavior rude, disgusting, or inappropriate. And sometimes offending against common courtesy or failing to follow the social standard of politeness, if done intentionally, could be at least a venial sin or uncharity.