medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
We had quite a lot of discussion on this in 1999/2000 (I think I triggered it - I was writing a paper on the burial of the unbaptised in C17 Wales and wanted background on canon law issues). I think I was told in the course of that of some evidence for midwives baptising stillborn infants, and there's the parallel of women who died in childbed being churched by proxy. I can't find references for this now but you might trawl back through the archive.
Maddy
Dr Madeleine Gray PhD, FRHistS
Reader in History/ Darllenydd mewn Hanes
School of Humanities and Lifelong Learning /Ysgol Ddyniaethau a Dysgu Gydol Oes
University of South Wales/Prifysgol De Cymru
Caerleon Campus/Campws Caerllion,
Newport/Casnewydd NP18 3QT Tel: +44 (0)1633.432675
'Small wonder politicians no longer read history. It would give them nightmares.' (Simon Jenkins)
________________________________________
From: medieval-religion - Scholarly discussions of medieval religious culture [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of John Briggs [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 28 June 2013 22:10
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [M-R] souls of unbaptized infants - limbo puerorum
medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
Regards,
On 28/06/2013 21:32, Ms B M Cook wrote:
>
> I have always understood that not only could Baptism be administered in
> an emergency by a layman, it could also be administered by a WOMAN, the
> only sacrament which carried this permission. This meant that a midwife
> - or any other female attendant - could baptise a live new born infant
> which looked about to expire, and that a midwife was even permitted to
> baptise the protruding limb of a half-born child if there was a risk the
> baby might not survive the birthing experience - a breeches birth or the
> dreaded umbillical-cord-about-the-throat being the obvious hazards.
> But. A baby born dead could not be retrospectively baptised.
Strictly speaking, it was only the head which could be baptised. Of
course, you wouldn't then know the sex, so the general-purpose names
"Creatura" and "Vitalis" would be used.
(I only have to hand Ernest Weekley, Jack and Jill: A Study of Our
Christian Names, 1948 and Charles W. Bardsley, Curiosities of Puritan
Nomenclature, 1888. Neither gives references, but Bardsley does
helpfully quote the following:
"Nemo in utero matris clausus baptizari debet, si infans caput emiserit,
et periculum mortis immineat, baptizetur in capite, nec postea si vivus
evaserit, erit iterum baptizandus. At si aliud membrum emiserit, quod
vitalem indicet motum in illo, si periculum pendeat baptizetur,")
John Briggs
**********************************************************************
To join the list, send the message: subscribe medieval-religion YOUR NAME
to: [log in to unmask]
To send a message to the list, address it to:
[log in to unmask]
To leave the list, send the message: unsubscribe medieval-religion
to: [log in to unmask]
In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to:
[log in to unmask]
For further information, visit our web site:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/medieval-religion
**********************************************************************
To join the list, send the message: subscribe medieval-religion YOUR NAME
to: [log in to unmask]
To send a message to the list, address it to:
[log in to unmask]
To leave the list, send the message: unsubscribe medieval-religion
to: [log in to unmask]
In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to:
[log in to unmask]
For further information, visit our web site:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/medieval-religion
|