He used the wrong pronoun, the NYT reports.
He said “We baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” but:
The Vatican instructs priests to say “I baptize,” and if it is not said that way the baptism is deemed invalid.... Sandra Yocum, a professor of faith and culture at the University of Dayton, said that if a priest said “we,” it would imply that the source of the grace of the baptism came from the community, whereas saying “I” would correctly assert that “it’s God doing this work of grace” through the priest.
Posts
85 comments:
Communist Pope-----> invalid baptism.
The nuns taught me that what matters is the intention.
Lame. John the Baptist didn’t use that language but it was good enough for Jesus.
I get the importance of language, and yet I'm troubled by the explanation.
In the early church, the Donatists claimed that baptisms by clergy who were later found to be immoral or to deny Christ were invalid, so anyone baptized by them had to be rebaptized. This was robustly argued against and a whole doctrine developed that it is the work of Christ that provides validity, not the moral quality of the one performing it. This seems to be relevant here, as it's not like he was baptizing in the name of another god, but rather used a plural first person pronoun about who was baptizing. Making these invalid seems to make the issue of baptism about the performance of the priest rather than the work of Christ, thus a Donatist kind of heresy.
Moreover, emphasizing the "I" language doesn't signify that it is God doing the work of grace, it signifies the priest is the one doing the work of grace on behalf of God. In Scripture, the first person plural for God is found in Genesis 1:26. So it's not necessarily out of bounds to signify God in Trinity by use of the plural, which reflects what is the historically necessary formula "in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit"
We can also see the subject of the baptism formula "I" or "We" not as the one who bestows the grace, but the one who is actually performing the action of baptizing, who here is the priest and the priest isn't acting in his own power or authority but as part of the Catholic community.
If the Catholic church can, and it does, see baptisms as valid that have been performed by pedophile priests (who in no way, shape, or form represent God because of their sin) then I don't see how they could reject questionable pronoun differences that 1) aren't considered core to historic Christian rules on baptism and 2) can be equally interpreted as theologically valid.
Either the baptisms are valid no matter what the priest does as long as done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, or the Vatican is embracing a kind of grammatical Donatism, which shows some messed up priorities because it doesn't have the same rules for ethical failings or theological heresies.
Did he have sex with the children while he was preforming the baptisms? Or did he wait?
In speech act theory, that's called an infelicitous condition. The speech act fails.
As when you say "I do" in a theatrical portrayal of a marriage ceremony, it doesn't take.
For 19 years or so parishioners thought he was just using his preferred pronoun?
I wouldn’t think G-d would care about a little clerical error. Heh.
The Didache, likely one of the oldest non-canonical Christian writings, says this:
Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism
And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit [Matthew 28:19], in living [running] water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.
The pronoun isn't indicated either here or in Matthew 28. The I in baptism doesn't indicate God but the one baptizing. The grace of God is not dependent on the baptizer but is signified in the invoking of the Holy Trinity.
I just can't see how the baptism are actually invalid in any theological or ecclesial sense.
And, sheesh, what if the priest doesn't even speak English?!
God is notoriously strict in this regard.
Since I'm Jesuit educated, I say substantial compliance is good enough.
What if one the babies died after being "wrongly" baptized? Does that baby sit in purgatory because of a mistake of the priest? Obviously not!
It's called Jesuitical for good reason; to fix the mistakes of the rest of the priesthood.
Or the priesthood of all believers that Calvin and other real Christians taught. Catholics are held in a prison of sacraments for sale in the apostolic succession that gives the corrupt Clerisy their Monopoly on God. Great business model but not scriptural at all.
This is why there's a fight in the church between the traditionalists and the current ruling clergy: the traditionalists understand that the ritual matters, that the words said have weight and power. Too many priests have been allowed to get loosie-goosy with the new mass, and that has very real spiritual consequences for their flocks. The fight over the Latin mass isn't simply about the aesthetics.
Only the Pharisees care about such things. This is the problem with ritualistic organized religion in that believers end up believing such things matter. But if you believe in the God of the Bible, you would realize that the God as described in the Bible would not care about "I" versus "We", let alone any go-through-the-motions ritual. One really has to believe more in the mechanics of religion than what God really wants from us to even conceive of the term "invalid" baptism.
If I'd been there I would have asked him why he said those words that way. And I would have gone higher with his answer. And I think other people did just that. And so the problem reaches higher. Why was nothing done? Who was the bishop? What else was going on? Of course, being from Milwaukee where the our late Archbishop Weakland was embezzling church funds to pay blackmail to his former gay lover, I have a type of outlook - somewhat like Dante on Boniface VIII and all his associates. But still I think these questions need to be answered.
My question is, what if the priest uses milk instead of water to perform the baptism? Or butter instead of oil? Irony that any Catholic can perform baptism. (Don't want dying newborns going to hell or limbo for want of a priest who knows his singulars from his plurals.)
The Vatican instructs priests to say “I baptize,” and if it is not said that way the baptism is deemed invalid.
It looks like it's that gol-durned "form and matter" distinction in the sacrament that prevents Ecclesia Supplet from applying.
God save us all from dipshit clergy, of which there has never been a short supply.
The NYT's is an evil institution and must be destroyed.
I was raised a Catholic, and could easily have become a Catholic priest. What prevented it were fights just like this.
The idea that a just god (and God is indeed Just), who loves me (And God indeed Loves me), would sentence me to eternal exile and damnation because the priest who baptized me used the wrong pronoun is absurd. If it's not absurd, then God is neither just nor loves me, he's a fucking bureaucrat.
The crux of the matter for me is this: The only unforgivable sin in the Catholic Church is proclaiming a disbelief of God. God created me out of love. He created me with free will. He's going to sentence me to exile and eternal damnation for using my free will?
What happened to forgiveness? A loving father would understand my doubts, and/or disbelief and welcome me with open arms anyway, because he loves me and is my father... right?
What the Hell, er, Limbo! Talk about praying for the end of time. Meatloaf had no idea when he sang that he'd be speaking for thousands of Phoenicians.
The real threat to the Church is the relatively small number of people who find grace in the older Latin form of the Mass. Fortunately, Pope Pfrancis is doing his best to crush them underfoot.
Baptism, schmaptism!
There is a case that could be made that no contemporary Roman Catholic baptism is valid. Canon 2 of the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) states that any bishop who commits simony (buying or selling a church office) has rendered his ordination invalid and the ordination of anyone he subsequently ordains as well.
To take only one example of a Pope that is widely known to have committed simony, consider Rodrigo Borgia who was elected Pope Alexander 6 in 1492. Any priest or bishop ordained by him or those he ordained would have an invalid ordination according to Chalcedon, which is part of infallible tradition according to Catholic theology.
It's times like this; i'm glad i was raised protestant
Paulie Walnuts would know how to deal with this.
The article is paywalled. Who determined the baptisms to be invalid? The Vatican?
I'm reminded of this W.B. Yeats quote: "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity."
Validity of fake ritual questioned.
There is a good non-binary pronouns joke in there somewhere but I'm too lazy to come up with it.
Interesting. This hasn't been in any of the local news here in Maricopa Co.
I wonder what words my priest used 74 years ago. I may be living a false life...
If you subscribe to some organized religion, but you fail to give the precepts of that religion supremacy because of "fairness" or "changing mores" or "feelz", aren't you really just a member of a new social club?
If it's that important, it should have been on the Priest Test.
Is not "I" included in "We"?
I suppose souls baptized in languages with no singular-plural distinction will be looking down from heaven and mocking poor souls baptized by priests in languages with the distinction who got it wrong.
What nonsense!
A partial repost of my comment in this post by Ann "I went running up the road with my holy oils...." from last Oct.
The context in this explanation isn't exact, but it expresses the general idea.
..."The sacraments. They are the signs of Christ's work; the effectiveness of Christ's continuing work in his Church cannot be dependent on man's inadequacy".
From https://dphx.org/valid-baptisms/
"It is important to note that, while God instituted the sacraments for us, He is not bound by them. Though they are our surest access to grace, God can grant His grace in ways known only to Him. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, God has bound Himself to the sacraments, but He is not bound by the sacraments. This means that while we can be certain that God always works through the sacraments when they are properly conferred by the minister, God is not bound by the sacraments in that He can and does extend His grace in whatever measure and manner He wills. We can be assured that all who approached God, our Father, in good faith to receive the sacraments did not walk away empty-handed."
And, sheesh, what if the priest doesn't even speak English?!
Well Jesus certainly didn't. Nor Italian or Latin or Spanish or German or Polish...
Invalids should be baptized too.
Article is behind pay wall, but I did click through to see it is not just some "professor of faith and culture" opinion. The priest resigned is the sub-headline, which suggests acceptance of guilt. Then again, this is the NYT, and they'll lie about anything so long as you can't prove actual malice, so it is possible the priest stepped down for other reasons.
Otherwise, I'm like M. I'm comfortable with my beliefs that the all-knowing would know the intent. I would agree with Gahrie, but I differ here; a ritual is a ritual and if the Vatican dictates the proper way to conduct the ritual; then the priest (a bureaucrat) ought to follow the proper procedure or resign, at least from that activity, if unable or unwilling. However, I'm more concerned that the use of pronouns in this matter is punished so, while other inappropriate proclivities tend to get ignored.
It’s not just baptisms, according the Diocese FAQs:
“Does this affect my marriage?
Maybe! Unfortunately, there is no single clear answer. There are a number of variables when it comes to valid marriages, and the Tribunal is here to help.”k
“My question is, what if the priest uses milk instead of water to perform the baptism?”
That hypo is actually discussed in the article.
"There are a number of variables when it comes to valid marriages, and the Tribunal is here to help.”
Guy from Tribunal here to help actually sounds worse than 'I am from the government and am here to help'
Catholic theology teaches the principle of ex opere operato, literally "on account of the work done." This teaches that the grace that comes through the sacrament (as sacraments in Catholic theology are channels of God's grace) is not dependent upon the faith or character of the minister administrating the sacrament.
However, it is a common misconception to assert that this teaching also means the sacrament works despite the faith of the one receiving it. That is not the case. The person receiving the sacrament must have faith in it (or in the case of parents of babies being baptized, the faith of the parents). See The Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 1128.
"Or the priesthood of all believers that Calvin and other real Christians taught"
Well, Calvin taught that you are saved or damned before you are even born so whatever else Calvin and his horde of 'real Christians' (who decided that?) taught really doesn't matter whatsoever.
Close enough for government work...
It sounds like they consulted the PGA tour for this ruling.
The hypo in the article is using milk in place of communion wine. I took mine from that. The harder case for communion would be substituting grape juice or nonalcoholic wine. I think that's verboten, and the prohibition laws had to allow for the liturgical use of wine. Every altar boy (sorry, server) should know that one will get sick before drunk chugging ultra sweet altar wine.
I think that this ruling favors the letter of the law over the spirit of the law. Is this scholasticism at work? I don’ t know. The church hierarchy is often too legalistic, which is alienating to some Catholics. A priest once told me that even sacraments administered by corrupt priests (pedophiles, etc.) are still valid. If they weren’t, then all sacraments formerly administered by all those defrocked priests would be invalid. Perhaps the priest thought “We baptize” meant “the Church baptizes” and not that “the community baptizes.” A friend, who is a priest with a doctorate in canon law, spends much of his time settling disputes centered on semantics, syntax, rhetoric, grammar and Church history. I
wouldn’t want his job, even though it might be interesting.
I think it's supposed to be in Greek. Didn't the Disciples speak Greek?
"The NYT's is an evil institution and must be destroyed."
Delenda est NY Tempores.
But, was this an example of actual malice?
‘Is not "I" included in "We"?’
‘There is no “I” in “We”.’
—- John Wooden
I, for one, can’t wait to see the Scheister & Scheister Law tv commercials “If you or a loved one suffered an invalid baptism please contact…”
No doubt about it.
If John Calvin was correct, none of this imbroglio matters. God decided, before the beginning of time, which humans would be saved and which would burn in eternity. Talk about tough love. BTW I was raised a Congregationalist which was Calvinism "light". I secretly wanted to be a Universalist where everyone (and anything!) goes!
The priest told parishioners, "Sorry, We fucked up."
False alarm! Turns out he had a turd in his pocket.
if it is not said that way the baptism is deemed invalid.
By whom is it so deemed? Merciful God? I rather doubt that.
'The priest told parishioners, "Sorry, We fucked up."'
Sounds good in Latin, though...
1. No, like everything else, mere intention isn't sufficient. What one actually does is important too.
2. The baptism of John the Baptist was different from sacramental baptism, which is Trinitarian, as Jesus instructs in the Gospel, which is to baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
3. The "we" is incorrect (and hence the "I" is necessary) because in saying "we," the priest was indicating the people present were conveying the grace, rather than the Lord.
4. God can and presumably will correct any "clerical error."
5. Anyone Jesuit educated should presume what they were told is invalid.
6. Trad guy is still an anti-Catholic bigot, I see.
7. God would NOT sentence someone to eternal exile and damnation because the wrong words were used and the Church does not teach that and if you think that the Church does, then YOU are the one in error and your choice in life was your choice - the Church did not prevent you from doing anything.
8. Why are people relying on the New York Times and it's take on the matter, paywall or not?? The Vatican has it's own website. Look it up and read the original document yourself.
9. Don't let the NYT's reporting on this lead you to proclaim, "What nonsense." Do you believe everything else the Times tells you? Then why do you when it comes to the Church?
10. Even when someone explains it to some of you, and even draws you a picture, you still wallow in your ignorance.
_________
If anyone is REALLY interested in knowing what the ACTUAL ruling and explanation is from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it can be found here:
https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2020/08/06/0406/00923.html#rispostein
Bender--taking the fun out of fundamentalism.
There are people inside the Catholic Church who regard it as a comfortable berth in which they are supported by a pack of fools. These people tend to express their disbelief by sly alterations of words during sermons, at Mass or when giving sacraments such as marriage or, in this case, Baptism. During the Boomer years they were everywhere. What kind of damage are they doing. To non-believers, I would say this: it's one thing not to believe and to live out your convictions by not going to church; it's another to get a "job" as a priest within the some church and use it for your own dishonest, greedy, lazy purposes. That is what Joe Biden and Kamala are doing with the US political system. That's what teachers who talk about "anti-racism" when they mean CRT-based curriculums are doing in the schools. Words matter.
in regard to the formula, the priest, by saying "we," was asserting that his church was a Protestant church in which authority comes from the congregation united in Christ. That is not the Catholic belief. Go join the Protestants if that's what you believe. And if you're just pretending that you want to lead people to an understanding of their true relation to God, then aren't you a liar and a cheat? Nothing will happen to you because if you are found out, you can always run away to the public square where no one mentions God.
And there they are quite, quite sure that, by them not mentioning God, they've eliminated the possibility that they themselves have an eternal soul. And accountability to a truly just Judge. Whew.
Bender, thanks for that step by step. I still don't see how point 3 is true, the pronoun isn't indicating God's grace, but the baptizer, which the plural can mean the community or the Church.
I think the CDF got this wrong based on theology and Church history.They are misrepresenting the pronoun. I can understand the issue involved but a common sense interpretation of the 'we' surely isn't that the priest thought the people present were conferring grace but that the community was joined together in the activity of baptism through the person of the priest.
Sheesh, if the CDF was so concerned about the sanctity of precise language they should focus first on removing the filioque.
1. The RCC is not the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The Orthodox Church is. So only Orthodox sacraments are valid anyway;
2. The Orthodox Church does not use pronouns to baptize. Our Priests use the passive. They say "The servant of God [name] IS baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit." This is specifically because it is the Holy Trinity adminisering the Mysteries, and not the Priest, nor the Church;
3. This is 101 stuff at seminary. You are taught how to baptize. If you are doing it differently, it's not an accident. It's because you decided you knew better than your Bishop (or Pope, in this instance). Which kinda puts you in heresy. And does indeed make what you do invalid, at least for your part;
4. I can't speak for RCC, but parishioners thus baptized are not necessarily in limbo, either figuratively or literally. All adult parishioners are also confirmed, which in Orthodoxy we call chrismation. Chrismation by nature corrects any deficiencies of the baptism. My own baptism was a Protestant one, but I was not "rebaptized" when I became Orthodox. I was chrismated and entered the Church that way. It is not a problem for most of the people baptized by this Priest, because they would have also underwent confirmation;
5. Words really do matter in Christian faith. Sins can be forgiven, but heresies must be renounced.
A slight venal, not mortal sin, unless he intended it, which he did not. Tempest in a teapot.
Sheridan: anything is a combination of nothing and narcissism. But nobody is stopping you from choosing this now.
I hope he used the right words when he married people.
I don't think it would have been a big deal if he botched the funerals, but who can say what consequences that might have?
If you are doing it differently, it's not an accident. It's because you decided you knew better than your Bishop (or Pope, in this instance). Which kinda puts you in heresy... Words really do matter in Christian faith. Sins can be forgiven, but heresies must be renounced.
Words matter, which makes it all the more strange you're using the word "heresy" so flippantly. Disagreeing with a bishop is not a heresy. Even the Pope is considered infallible in very limited situations in which he is speaking ex cathedra.
Heresy isn't just disagreement or stuff we don't like, even when they prevent communion with each other. It's actually defined concerns with creedal significance. That's my point in all this. Given the guidance by the Catholic Church, the first person pronoun is the accepted phrasing, but using the second person plural doesn't rise to the point of making such baptisms invalid. That's a really strong response based on questionable interpretation of what the initial pronoun signifies and the intent of the priest in using the plural first person.
The use of the formula "Father and Son and Holy Spirit" are the required elements in historic Christianity, but the construction of the sentence can be flexible, as the really nice Orthodox example you provided indicates.
More, one reason I really like the Didache is that it provides pastoral guidance (back when there was no question about who or what was the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church) which is flexible based on context. Rather than being rigidly dogmatic, it prioritizes God's work in the act not the performance of the one baptizing.
Let us hear from the babies that baptized the priest during the ceremonies ????
at least that should be legit?
2. The baptism of John the Baptist was different from sacramental baptism, which is Trinitarian, as Jesus instructs in the Gospel, which is to baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
3. The "we" is incorrect (and hence the "I" is necessary) because in saying "we," the priest was indicating the people present were conveying the grace, rather than the Lord.
------------
WE are not enlightened by these 2 points sayeth the Queen
how would "I" indicate "the Lord"
God would NOT sentence someone to eternal exile and damnation because the wrong words were used and the Church does not teach that and if you think that the Church does, then YOU are the one in error and your choice in life was your choice - the Church did not prevent you from doing anything.
What happens to those who die without a valid baptism?
It has been said that there is a baptism of intention, that Catholic parents who lose a child to a miscarriage would have baptized that child and so the child has the rights associated with baptism, whatever they may be. At any rate that child is not stuck in the easiest room in Hell. And this has extensions to others.
I think we should all keep in mind that we aren't going to decide who gets heaven and who gets hell; and we aren't going to decide whether there is a heaven or a hell; and we aren't going to decide whether there is a God or not. We're only going to decide how we live.
"1. The RCC is not the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The Orthodox Church is. So only Orthodox sacraments are valid anyway;"
Strange, with his first point Blair seems to insist that he is the 'Orthodox' equivalent of a Jack Chicker. But then doesn't seem to realize that with what he further writes, especially point 4, that he himself doesn't believe that.
People who have no understanding of Christ think that Christianity is a rule-based religion. If you follow the rules you will earn your place in heaven. If you fail to follow the rules (i.e. "sin"), you will burn in hell.
So people who have no understanding of Christ say that you have to follow the baptism rules. Mistakes are not allowed. Unbaptized people are going to hell. You were not baptized correctly. You are going to hell.
If you spend any time any Bible study at all, you will quickly discover that Jesus had multiple fights with rule-bound idiots.
He famously reduced all the rules to two.
Love God.
Love your neighbor as yourself.
So rule-bound idiots, like The New York Times, feel that they can classify human beings as non-people. And once that classification has been made, you can stab them, you can poison them, you can do whatever you want to them. And they will wave the baby-killing rulebook in your face.
And they laugh and say, "ha ha, you failed to baptize your babies correctly, they're all going to hell."
And they laugh some more and say, "ha ha, all those aborted babies weren't baptized, they're going to hell, too!"
But Christ teaches us to love, and to forgive, and to have faith that all our sins, failings, and wrong-doings will be forgiven.
details matter. don't be sloppy
I have to say this is a very entertaining thread where terms like the filoque turn up!
If a magician says the magic words in the wrong order, the trick still works.
There are also downstream effects (due this time to a Texas deacon):
“The failure to baptize validly caused major problems for one Oklahoma man who thought he was ordained a Catholic priest. He watched a video of his infant baptism and discovered he had been invalidly baptized by a Texas deacon who used the “we baptize” formula. The man was subsequently baptized, confirmed, given first Holy Communion, and ordained a deacon and then a priest.”
Disagreeing with a bishop is not a heresy.
It is on issues of dogma. Using "we" implies a belief at variance from the dogmatic belief that the Holy Trinity conveys the sacraments. Therefore heresy.
...Blair seems to insist that he is the 'Orthodox' equivalent of a Jack Chicker. But then doesn't seem to realize... that he himself doesn't believe that.
That's because I am not the Orthodox equivalent of a Jack Chicker. Orthodox faith is not juridical in the stark manner that Chick portrayed in his infamous tracts. To say that Orthodox sacraments (or more properly, Mysteries) are the only valid ones implies nothing about the souls who do not receive them. Nor does it mean that RCC sacraments are without any form of grace or that God does not honor the intent of them when they are received
Twenty years. I wonder if every adult participant recalls exactly what was said? Or should those who he baptized just go get an emergency baptism to cover all of the bases?
A common misconception in these comments and in the article is that the baptism itself is what determines whether someone is 'saved'. That it is purely a matter of rules. This is not the case.
God is not constrained to follow the Church's rules. God can save whoever He wants.
However, He has granted the Church the privilege of mediating salvation. "Whosever sins you forgive are forgiven". The Church exercises this privilege carefully, requiring that certain words be said, "I baptize you", "I absolve you", or certain aspects of the ceremony be maintained with care, such as wine and bread made of wheat for communion. This may seem legalistic, but consider it from the Church's perspective: too much flexibility in these things could be an abuse of the privilege granted to the Church by God.
Probably God considers all these people to be baptized. But the Church cannot guarantee it unless their rules are followed.
Here is a link to the Diocese of Phoenix website and explanation. I just shake my head as a Catholic in Phoenix. Olmsted is very conservative.
https://dphx.org/valid-baptisms/
Blair '...'
I don't say you have the theology of a Jack Chicker but just that you are his 'Orthodox' equivalent.
I read the Vatican document that explained the validity issue. Though it spent quite a bit of time explaining the problems with the changed words, another major issue that the words were changed at all. Priests do not have the authority to change liturgical wording. By doing so this priest undermined his intent to faithfully transmit the graces he was entrusted with. So the issue is not just that the words were wrong (deficit of form) but that the approach was wrong (deficit of intent).
People who assert that "God doesn't care" how a Catholic sacrament such as baptism is performed don't understand the Catholic belief that Christ as God instituted the sacraments and also founded the Church as the conduit through which the sacraments would be administered along with the grace that they confer. Each of the seven sacraments has a form, a verbal formula to be followed precisely. The formula is an element of the sacrament itself, and when that element is missing, there is no valid sacrament. It's somewhat analogous to the spells in the Harry Potter books and movies; it's the precise wording of the spell that makes it efficacious. Furthermore, when the priest says "I baptize you..." in a Catholic baptism or "I absolve you" during Catholic confession, he is acting personally as the representative of Christ and his Church, deputized by Christ to confer the grace that the sacrament confers.
Trouble arose after the Second Vatican Council when the formulas of the sacraments were translated into vernacular languages. Many priests then felt free to embellish them with additional rituals they thought would make the sacraments feel more meaningful to the participants. You see this often at Catholic Masses, where priests often add their own ad libs and sometimes verbal substitutions to the ritual words: greetings to the congregation and so forth. Some liberal priests try to eliminate references to God as "he" or add "our Mother" to "our Father"--all for the sake of making the feminists in attendance feel better.
Baptisms, happy occasions involving a tiny baby, have been particularly susceptible to this sort of thing, with priests and liturgy planners trying to give everyone involved--parents, godparents, the congregation gathered in the church--something to say and do in order to feel more involved. Thus, I'm sure, the "we baptize you," which has a pleasant communal connotation to it that undoubtedly makes everyone present feel like a participant in the sacrament. But it is not the parents, the godparents, or the members of the congregation who are baptizing the baby. It is the priest, the individual deputized by the Church to confer the sacrament with its attendant grace. The others are merely witnesses to the mysterious and miraculous transaction in which (according to Catholic belief) the baby is made free of the stain of
Adam's sin and thus holy.
Father Arango, who has resigned from his pastor's position but remains a Catholic priest in good standing, sounds like a good-hearted man who wanted to do right by the people in his parish. He made a dreadful but not irreparable mistake for which he is trying to make amends. He is an object lesson for other priests: Don't fool around with sacramental rites.
Finally, Catholics who were invalidly baptized will not go to hell unless they plant themselves there by their own conduct. There is, in Catholic theology, such a thing as "baptism of desire," in which those who sincerely wish to be baptized but who are prevented by some circumstance from doing so, are deemed validly baptized. In the case of baptism of babies, the godparents stand in the stead of the infant and by their words and presence, express the wish to be baptized, renouncing Satan and voicing belief in the Christian creed. For Catholics who miss the chance to be formally re-baptized, those expressions should suffice.
.... Unless the godfather is Michael Corleone.
Post a Comment