Tweet
From Father Nathan Monk on FB.
I’ve had countless people reach out to me asking my opinion on the issue of the priest who incorrectly baptized thousands of people. If you aren’t aware, here is a quick recap: a Roman Catholic priest recently resigned because he said “we baptize you” instead of “I baptize you” during the sacrament. An investigation happened, and it turns out this priest has been saying it this way since his ordination. The Church has ruled the baptisms invalid.
And my opinion is: that’s silly.
Most sacraments in the Church can only be performed by a priest or bishop. For example, only a bishop can ordain a priest. Only a priest can hear confession or consecrate the bread and wine during communion. However, under extreme circumstances, any baptized person can perform a baptism.
If you were to find yourself at the scene of an accident and someone requested to be baptized, you could do it. The rules are simple: use water and say, “I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” Bam! Baptism.
The Church also accepts baptisms from other churches as valid. If you converted to Catholicism from a Protestant church, they would not require you to be baptized again. As long as the church believes in the trinity, baptizes with water, and does so in the name of the “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,” that baptism is considered valid.
The reason for this is because the creed says, “we believe in one baptism,” meaning you can only be baptized the one time. To require someone to be baptized a second time would be considered heresy.
In my personal and professional opinion, this is an absurd response, and I can not find anything to justify it in canon law. The Roman Church choosing to allow the sacraments to take place in the vernacular post-Vatican II was bound to cause these types of variations in liturgical practice. Most especially for bilingual clergy, as was the case with this priest.
I can not personally find any justification for declaring these baptisms invalid; they may be illicit but not invalid. Illicit means whenever something is done outside the protocol or authority of the Church. That is how baptisms of Protestant churches are viewed, valid but illicit.
I think the response of the Church to this incident is legalistic and cruel. It is cruel both to the congregants, drawing into question the validity of their baptisms, weddings, etc., and it is cruel to this priest. And, as an aside, I find the swiftness with which they handled the alleged misuse of one word within the baptism ritual verses *gestures broadly at all other issues within the church as a whole* is just flat out appalling.
In conclusion: whether you got dunked or sprinkled, no matter the gender of the person who did it, or the words used, if you were baptized in the name of the trinity, you are baptized. Period, the end, and I can’t believe this has become such a scandal.
Actually, yes, I can.
Because the decision came down from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and this absurd story broke right after Joey Ratz aka Pope Emeritus Benedict the 16th was called to the carpet for how he handled another scandal within the Church. And guess where he was in leadership before being appointed pope? The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith! And guess which story we are talking about instead of that? The one about a priest saying “we” instead of “I.”
I’ve had countless people reach out to me asking my opinion on the issue of the priest who incorrectly baptized thousands of people. If you aren’t aware, here is a quick recap: a Roman Catholic priest recently resigned because he said “we baptize you” instead of “I baptize you” during the sacrament. An investigation happened, and it turns out this priest has been saying it this way since his ordination. The Church has ruled the baptisms invalid.
And my opinion is: that’s silly.
Most sacraments in the Church can only be performed by a priest or bishop. For example, only a bishop can ordain a priest. Only a priest can hear confession or consecrate the bread and wine during communion. However, under extreme circumstances, any baptized person can perform a baptism.
If you were to find yourself at the scene of an accident and someone requested to be baptized, you could do it. The rules are simple: use water and say, “I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” Bam! Baptism.
The Church also accepts baptisms from other churches as valid. If you converted to Catholicism from a Protestant church, they would not require you to be baptized again. As long as the church believes in the trinity, baptizes with water, and does so in the name of the “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,” that baptism is considered valid.
The reason for this is because the creed says, “we believe in one baptism,” meaning you can only be baptized the one time. To require someone to be baptized a second time would be considered heresy.
In my personal and professional opinion, this is an absurd response, and I can not find anything to justify it in canon law. The Roman Church choosing to allow the sacraments to take place in the vernacular post-Vatican II was bound to cause these types of variations in liturgical practice. Most especially for bilingual clergy, as was the case with this priest.
I can not personally find any justification for declaring these baptisms invalid; they may be illicit but not invalid. Illicit means whenever something is done outside the protocol or authority of the Church. That is how baptisms of Protestant churches are viewed, valid but illicit.
I think the response of the Church to this incident is legalistic and cruel. It is cruel both to the congregants, drawing into question the validity of their baptisms, weddings, etc., and it is cruel to this priest. And, as an aside, I find the swiftness with which they handled the alleged misuse of one word within the baptism ritual verses *gestures broadly at all other issues within the church as a whole* is just flat out appalling.
In conclusion: whether you got dunked or sprinkled, no matter the gender of the person who did it, or the words used, if you were baptized in the name of the trinity, you are baptized. Period, the end, and I can’t believe this has become such a scandal.
Actually, yes, I can.
Because the decision came down from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and this absurd story broke right after Joey Ratz aka Pope Emeritus Benedict the 16th was called to the carpet for how he handled another scandal within the Church. And guess where he was in leadership before being appointed pope? The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith! And guess which story we are talking about instead of that? The one about a priest saying “we” instead of “I.”
Comment