Pope Innocent III makes clear in this passage that Jews are not to be forced into baptism through violence. But suppose a Jew has been forcibly baptized – what is his or her status in the eyes of the Church? In a later letter to the Archbishop of Arles in 1201, Innocent III clarified this matter in the following words:

Likewise, the question was asked about [the baptism of] those who are asleep or who are mad. Does the impression of baptism remain upon such, or are they to be rebaptized upon waking or when cured? There are some who say that, since sacraments yield their effects through themselves [i.e., not through the person who receives the sacrament],…therefore their impress, if not their aim, remains not only upon sleepers or madmen, but even upon the unwilling and the objectors. Thus not only children, who do not consent, receive the sacrament, but even dissimulators [people who are only pretending to be believers], who, if not by word, dissent at least at heart. To such one may answer that those who are immersed even though reluctant, do belong to ecclesiastical jurisdiction at least by reason of the sacrament, and might therefore be reasonably compelled to observe the rules of the Christian Faith.

It is, to be sure, contrary to the Christian faith that anyone who is unwilling and wholly opposed to it should be compelled to adopt and observe Christianity….Thus one who is drawn to Christianity by violence, through fear and through torture, and receives the sacrament of baptism in order to avoid loss [i.e., death or injury], he (like one who comes to baptism in dissimulation) does receive the impress of Christianity, and may be forced to observe the Christian faith as one who expressed a conditional willingness though, absolutely speaking, he was unwilling.

[From S. Grayzel, The Church and the Jews in the Thirteenth Century, p. 103]

Question: Papal policy opposed forced baptism. But to what degree did it offer Jews protection against forced baptism? What is the theological assumption about the act of baptism underlying the idea that even a forced baptism is valid?

Back