A baptism for an unnamed child

[Gerry_R]

I am looking at a baptism dated 1 June 1845 at St Mary's Kilkenny City where there is no name provided for the child. Parents' names are there, together with those of two sponsors.
From the fact that the record has not been deleted, I infer that a baptism did actually take place. Why is the child not named? I can only think that the child was stillborn, but can anyone offer an alternative explanation or shed more light on this?
There is no mention of the child in later records involving the family, by the way, which does point to a post mortem baptism. 

[hallmark]

Have you the Link to it??

[Sinann]

Fairly sure Catholics don't baptise stillborns, looks like he couldn't remember the child's name so left a space to fill in later but never got around to it.
https://registers.nli.ie/registers/vtls000635368#page/50/mode/1up

[gaffy]

I can only think that the child was stillborn...

My understanding of such circumstances was that it was where the child was born alive, but at risk of imminent death, including cases of doubt (ie. uncertain if alive, but where there might be the slightest chance).  But not where the child was clearly already deceased at birth.

[Gerry_R]

Thank you, Hallmark, Sinann and Gaffy.

I accessed my record through subscription site, FindMyPast,, so the link is probably not helpful.
However, I have copied the entry and attached it.

[aghadowey]

A child/person has to be alive in order to be baptised so a stillborn child cannot be baptised. In this case it's likely the child either hadn't been given a Christian name or the minister failed to record the name. If the baptism occurred at home by the time he went to write the entry the name might have been forgotten as often seemed to happen.

[Gerry_R]

Thank you all for your advice and ideas.

Aghadowey, I hadn't thought of the possibility that the minister might have forgotten the child's name.

Sinann, I was not aware of the NLI site for access to Irish Catholic records, but I'm enjoying looking through years of record and noting old family names! Brilliant!

[Maiden Stone]

I'm inclined to agree with aghadowey post #5 that either the child hadn't been named or the priest forgot the name. What order in the family did the child come? If it was a younger child in a large family the parents might not have agreed on a name. Perhaps the birth had surprised them. (I know 2 couples this happened to late 20thC; both women thought they were ill.) Another possible reason is that the parents had chosen a name which wasn't a saint's name and didn't meet with the priest's approval so he ignored it!
As there were 2 named sponsors it suggests to me that it was in all other respects a normal baptism.
See: Catholic Encyclopedia: Baptism: Adjuncts of baptism: Sponsors
"They are never necessary in private baptism."
newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#xvi

Catholic Encyclopedia: Baptism: Baptism of unborn infants
newadvent.org/cathen/022586b.htm#vii

Taking into account the year of birth it's not surprising if the child didn't survive.

[Gerry_R]

Thanks for your thoughts, Maiden Stone.

With regard to birth order, this child was the second of four born in Ireland: 1843, 1845, 1846, and about 1849. The three who survived accompanied their parents to Fremantle, Western Australia, in 1853. The fourth died at sea, just a few weeks from the end of the journey.