Thinking about this stuff gives me a migraine: https://www.ncronline.org/news/people/after-learning-his-baptism-was-invalid-priest-finds-blessing-re-ordination
Intention matters a lot. People are acting as if grace depends on humans, and not on God. I am remembering that I learned of Baptism of desire, back in grade school days. Surely that applies to someone who was ordained a priest in good faith.
I am also remembering an old movie, The Left Hand of God, in which Humphrey Bogart assumed the identity of a priest who had been killed in China. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Left_Hand_of_God
A pretty convoluted plot, but sometimes truth is stranger than fiction. After all, this is 2020.
And then there is Graham Greene's whiskey priest. And the legend of the Yankee who came upon a dying Reb curing the Civil War, and the confused Reb asked the Yank to hear his confession, which he did. Invalid? Oh, yeah, for sure. Did God take it into account? Is God love?
ReplyDeleteAn institution has to protect its rules. But God is not subjected to institutional rules. Re-ordination ought to be enough to keep a scrupulous bishop happy; they didn't have to throw all the people the priest baptized, brought the last rites to and witnessed the marriages of to the worries and frets of episcopal scruples.
When reason and logic fail, you can always count on voodoo and mumbo jumbo to quell the masses.
DeleteI suppose if the church as institution granted validity based on intention and sacramental power residing in the community, they'd be ceding power to the community and worse, to God.
ReplyDeleteYikes. Good luck getting all those kids for a confirmation do-over. It's hard enough getting them in to begin with.
ReplyDeleteA cynical part of my mind wonders how many couples who were informed that their marriage might have been invalid wouldn't go for the do-over, but take it as a get out of jail free card.
ReplyDeleteActually I remember hearing that the couple confers the sacrament on themselves, and the priest was just the official witness of the church. So maybe not invalid.
Those marriages would likely be invalid by Michigan law, which requires an ordained minister, judge, mayor, or county clerk as an officiant. I would be calling the county clerk for info asap and not horsing around with the Archdiocese of Detroit. Good Lord.
DeleteDoes Michigan recognize common law marriage?
DeleteNot since 1957, but if you move here from another state where your common law marriage is recognized, you may be able to claim some spousal rights under Michigan law.
DeleteIf you want to read some really sad evangelism, try this, where the archdiocese explains all plights in all their ramifications. I hope the angels are on the Cloud when they try to sort it out upstairs because these "pastors" will just make it worse downstairs:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.aod.org/sacramentsupdate?__hstc=138938284.8f088fff22effbbd8a28954ea7d51efe.1598722171081.1598722171081.1598722171081.1&__hssc=138938284.1.1598722171081&__hsfp=4076013801
Just reading some of the comments after the article you linked, one of them struck me, "Wouldn't God just take care of it?" Do we even trust God? We say we do, but we don't act like it.
DeleteYou're right, it's some really sad evangelism.
Katherine, if we don't keep God in a cage, who knows what God might do if God got loose?
DeleteHow is it sad?
DeleteThis info is the backbone of RCIA: It's all about whether your marriage is valid, whether your baptism was valid, why you need to confess to a priest and receive absolution, why your communion in an Anglican or Protestant Church is invalid and how you must receive and treat the Host, and when you should seek anointing of the sick.
I'm beginning to wonder about your RCIA, Jean. I am not a marriage guy nor an RCIA guy, but my deacon pal -- 60-plus marriage cases and never a denial -- is. Our old Re-membering program (for "former and pissed off Catholics," as his wife said, used to begin with us lifting self-imposed excommunications, a lot of them connected with marriages that never should have been. Atheists used to turn up to argue (I entertained them), but the largest group were people who needed help getting over guilt they probably never should have felt at the breakup of their marriage.
DeleteWhen my husband went through RCIA in 1981, I don't recall a lot of discussion about validity of sacraments. They accepted his complete immersion dunking Baptism that happened when he was 14, and just did Confirmation at the Easter vigil.
DeleteRCIA explains how the God you know (formed by whatever other tradition you came from or what other experiences you had) is alike/different from the God the Church promotes.
DeleteWhat else would it be?
In RCIA as I experienced it, it was pretty much all about the sacraments: Marriage, required proof of marriage, divorce and explanation of annulment, baptism, required proof of baptism from denomination of origin, our obligations to our baptized children, how you are supposed to deal with small children at Mass (bribes and threats), confirmation and why yours wasn't valid in your denomination of origin even if your baptism was, timing of first confession and reporting grave sins only, first communion and proper way to receive in hand or by mouth, proper attire for RCIA (no black clothes), white or light pastels preferred, ensuring that your Protestant relatives did not take communion, etc. We were required to tell our parents we were converting, which I ignored, since proof was not required. There was a session on Catholic funerals, never held in a funeral home, must be buried in consecrated ground, pall must be used, cremation ok, body or ashes must be present for funeral, scattering of ashes not allowed.
DeleteThere was also a lot of discussion about proper use of sacramentals--holy water to be taken home in clean glass bottles only with labels removed, rosaries and medals should be blessed and buried in the garden if broken, votive candles are $5 each per lighting, touch relics, no sacramentals should ever be sold.
We got a Catholic Bible, copy of the CCC, and pamphlets on the rosary. We went over the prayers line by line so we understood what they m eant. I enjoyed that.
We also got a lot of instruction on how to make he sign of he cross and genuflect properly, to kneel without leaning on the pew, etc. etc.
We had Xeroxed readings on all these topics each week. Sometimes they showed a video.
Church Ladies gave endless anecdotes about growing up Catholic pre-Vat2, May crownings, family rosaries, going to Catholic school, raising their kids Catholic, etc.
Well I'm flunking out already, can't kneel or genuflect due to a bum knee.
DeleteRe: telling one's parents about conversion, sonetimes it's easier to get forgiveness than permission or a blessing. My husband told his mother prior, and she was decent, said she had seen it coming. My mom didn't tell her parents until after the deed was done. Grandma had a problem "with the Mary stuff". Granddad said he thought altar society was pretty much like Ladies' Aid, so no big deal. So much for doctrinal niceties.
Pfft. I was 45 years old. I didn't think I needed to "tell Mom and Dad"; they were lulus about organized religion and it wasn't any of their business.
DeleteEvery Catholic I have ever talked to has been surprised to hear what is involved in RCIA. They don't seem to realize that it takes months (if you count Inquirers) or to understand all the hoops that you have to jump through in order to get "processed."
Parishioners who hit the Mass times when the various Rites along the way to the Easter Vigil occur may be aware that there are converts, but they don't know what's going on behind the scenes. I have never heard a deacon or a priest refer to or explain these rites to the congregation who is witnessing them.
It's pretty much, "I hope this is not going to drag out the Mass."
It doesn't sound like Fr. Hood had to go through any of this, just get his sacraments. He had apparently already been catechized. Plus, there's a priest shortage, and they can't take one out of circulation for four months.
OK, sorry to drag all these specifics in here. I'm sure you folks are all sick of hearing about Jean's Excellent Adventures in RCIA!
Jean, I am fascinated with your stories of RCIA. I have never known anyone to convert to Catholicism other than spouses - who usually chose to ignore a whole lot of official Catholic teaching but finished the process (often with their fingers crossed behind their backs) to have the family all on the same denominational page.
DeleteSince you and your husband are both converts, it fascinates me to learn what you had to go through, and, I confess, I'm amazed that you completed the process.
Of all the stupidities you have told us about, I think that telling adults that they are required to inform their parents is the worst of all.
Sad but true - the RCC does regard the laity as mindless sheep (it even uses the word "sheep") and characterizes the non-ordained as "the simple faithful".
More than one former Catholic that I have met in the EC has told me that one reason (there are many, but this one came up a lot) they changed from the RCC to the ECUSA is that "They don't ask you to check your brain at the door". The prep class for deciding whether or not to request formal reception to the ECUSA in our EC parish is usually about 80% Catholics, 20$% other. I took the class out of general interest, but I have never officially changed. When I left the RCC I vowed that I would never again be an official member of any denomination. A "none". I know you passed through the EC on your way to Rome and didn't have a great experience. It seems to me to be a better intellectual fit for you though, than the RCC, based on your comments here.
Seriously, they had a dress code? They actually tell you what colors are preferred? Pastels????? For mass or for classes? I wear jeans all the time - often even on Sunday (but not my denim jeans - my dress-up jeans, which are black), and always when attending any kind of a meeting. (I will be buried in my old, comfy jeans too.)
No dress code, but the whole idea was to be in keeping with the move from dark of Lent to light of Easter, and they felt that we should reflect that tone.
DeleteI have great affection for and gratitude towards the Unitarians and Episcopalians who deeply affected my faith formation, and I could not have converted to Catholicism were there not room there to embrace the things I learned and valued in those traditions.
Believe me, the Episcopal Church has fire-breathing Church Ladies. Most of the ECUSA Church Ladies are descendants of the founding members of the parish, Country Club Republicans, and they operate like the DAR. They like to buy vestments and doo-dads for the church building. One Christmas Eve they wanted the priest to use champagne in the Cup. He put the kibosh on that.
I'm not sure what you mean by ECUSA being a "better intellectual fit." Faith is not an intellectual exercise for me. It is visceral and tactile. The RCC "fits" in that way. In addition, the best Christians I have known in my life were Catholic friends and neighbors.
I don't think the Catholic Church reflects the perfect love, mercy, grace, and wisdom of God Almighty. But I think it is less inclined to get derailed from working toward that goal by the vicissitudes and of this world than other Christian denominations. Are people going to get damaged and trampled by the RCC in the meantime? Yes, of course. They used to get burned up on the Church's say so. So improvement!
About telling one's parents (or other family members) about an impending conversion, there's something to be said for not springing the news on them unexpectedly, or not telling them at all and hoping they don't hear about it from someone else. I hope my children never tell me that they're coverting to another denomination, but if they do, I would want them to be honest with me and have the tough conversation.
DeleteJean, your experiences with the EC are the polar opposite of mine! Our congregation has only a handful of cradle Episcopalians, and, as far as I know, no country club Republicans. There might be a few Republicans in the pews, but, I would guess that the vast majority will be voting Biden. Before we joined that parish, they lost about 10% of their congregation because of the openness to gays, specifically during the upheaval that followed the acceptance of Bishop Robinson as a Bishop. I don't know. Maybe they were the Republicans? The congregation is mostly white, but there are a fair number of Africans, as well as African Americans, and a few Asians. Not many Hispanics though. I know one woman who was raised without any religion by her English parents. She married a Muslim, but since he had no interest in raising their children in the Islamic faith, she decided to look around. She joined the EC for herself and her family - they were all baptized together - with her husband's blessing. But her parents weren't happy. They wanted her to do as they did and raise the children without religion. Her husband did not join her in church, but he is just not-religious. He doesn't go to a mosque either.
DeleteIt is a very un-Waspy group, actually, with people from lots of different backgrounds. The former rector once told me that the vestry meetings were always lively because everyone came from a different background and brought some of it with them - finding the way forward was sometimes a challenge with so many different perspectives. Even though the congregation has few cradle Episcopalians, it does have former Baptists, and former Catholics, and former other mainline Protestants, and former evangelicals and former Quakers. That rector grew up Presbyterian, became an atheist, returned to religion via the Quakers, and eventually Episcopalian. The associate rector came from a Baptist and Presbyterian background before she joined up with the Episcopalians and became a priest. After our rector retired, he was succeeded by a woman who was a former Catholic - one of 7 kids, all parochial schools, and Notre Dame. She had to leave after only 1.5 years for some kind of health (family?) reason, and so now the hunt is on for another rector, hopefully one who will stay awhile.
Haven't met any fire-breathing church ladies there yet, and it's been 10 years. When I suggest the EC is a better intellectual fit for you, I am alluding to your very independent way of thinking. One of the things I like about the EC is that there are almost no 'must believes". I can go to communion with a clear conscience! But, of course, if I didn't have to consider my husband, I would just be un-churched. Being un-churched is also a good way to avoid getting damaged and trampled by the institutions called "churches".
Katherine, I suppose it’s polite to tell parents/family that one has decided on a different religious path so that they aren’t totally shocked when they say they can’t join you on Friday night because it’s Shabbat (or whatever):but why would a conversation with adult children who make a different decision regarding their own religious choices be a “tough” conversation? I would think it would simply be a conversation. An interesting one at that.
DeleteI'm sure lots could be said about what ECUSA is today and why. But I doubt I could say anything very insightful from the tenuous connection I have maintained (Ash Wednesday and Epiphany).
DeleteA discussion with my parents about religion was never "interesting." They were not tolerant people.
I was surprised by this story. The Church had in early centuries decided that priests in a state of sin confer valid sacraments/ I thought there was some doctrine like "the Church supplies" that covered cases in which people intended well but did not do the correct things through ignorance. I thought that at the most in such cases there would be a conditional baptism "If you are not baptized I baptized you..." And maybe in this case a conditional ordination just so that there would be not question.
ReplyDeleteAs presented this appears to me too much a magical view of the sacraments. We have been taught that there is baptism of desire, the catechumens who die before they are baptized are considered baptized.
I suspect all the publicity about this might have hidden agenda, like church authorities putting down people who make slight changes in the liturgy, and might be a particular warning to deacons that "big brother" is watching and may catch you even years later.
Well personally if I got a phone call saying my baptism, confirmation were not valid I would do nothing. The clergy may not supply, but I am absolutely certain that the Holy Spirit supplies superabundantly.
What isn't clear to me is if the deacon in question is still in active ministry, or even if he is still alive. If he is alive this whole thing must be a totally miserable experience for him.
DeleteThe PTB might also be making a point about loosey-goosey deacon formation.
I agree with you about the Holy Spirit.
He's retired. It was in the Q&A Tom linked to.
DeleteThen I feel sorry for him. Too bad the priest where he was a deacon, or the archbishop didn't flag the error early on and save a lot of grief.
DeleteI find this quote from Father Hood (in America Magazine) deeply disturbing:
ReplyDelete"There was definitely shock and sadness at finding out 30 years later that I was never baptized. It was an alienating sense that even though I was following the Lord, I wasn't a Christian, and I wasn't a priest and I wasn't a deacon."
Wasn't a Christian? Can't someone set him straight? I can see an epidemic of overwrought scrupulosity happening in the Detroit archdiocese as a result of this. Somebody needs to rein it in; one would think the archbishop could, but apparently that isn't happening.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOne problem is that baptism of desire and baptism of blood are not sacraments, so while I think it is crazy for this guy to say he was not a Christian until he was validly baptized, he had not received the sacrament of baptism, which is necessary for all the others. Since Jesus said that unless a man is "born again of water and the Holy Spirit," the Catholic Church is actually being "liberal" when it recognizes baptism of blood and baptism of desire.
ReplyDeleteThe bind the Catholic Church is in over a matter like this is that if God can step in and supply the effects of the sacraments, then the sacraments themselves are really not necessary. If sacraments only work because you believe they work, then there really are no sacraments.
The Catechism is interesting here, saying:
1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments. [Italics in the original]
This line is interesting for its equivocations: "The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude..."
DeleteThat the Church "does not know of any" doesn't mean there are NONE, and Nostra aetate, of course, implies there are some. And the word "assures" could be read as turning Baptism into a guarantee of salvation, which I am sure they don't and can't mean. (Only the Nine First Fridays can do that.) This is what you get from two millenia of overthinking.
Well, there's John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth in him might not perish but have eternal life."
DeleteAnd Romans 10:9 "That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved"
I could go on and on with Scripture quotes about salvation and what it means to be a Christian, including how we treat our least brethren and being saved through grace through faith. My point is that it's reductionist to try to boil it down to one verse or one teaching.
It seems like another inning of Catholic insider baseball which isn't helping anyone be a better follower of Chist.
Katherine, One thing I learned back in the days when I kept the atheists busy is that it's more fun to talk about Jesus than to follow him.
DeleteTom: Only the Nine First Fridays can do that.(guarantee salvation)
ReplyDeleteWhew. I’m so relieved. I completed the Nine First Fridays before I was 7 years old. Every year I asked my mom why I had to keep doing them each year. No response.
Aren’t there a few more guaranteed ways to heaven? Miraculous medals, doing all the required Divine Mercy activities? Etc.
I'm sure there are more. I brought up First Friday because a late friend of mine said he had made them so often he could afford to swap one of his to anyone who wanted to buy him a beer. If you look into them, there are always other conditions, like perfect contrition (nobody's perfect) that are like the 5-point type you agree to when you load a new app into your phone.
DeleteSo, the church is setting people up for a Gotcha God?
DeleteIsn't perfect contrition that you're sorry because your sins offend God, rather than purely selfish reasons of being afraid of the consequences?
DeleteIt's the same with plenary indulgences as with first Fridays, brown scapulat, etc., that your repentance for sin and religious observance are the conditions. In which case you're good to go and don't need the warranty anyway. I don't see it as a gotcha God as much as a security blanket, if one were needed.
Katherine, I don't believe in a Gotcha God. I also don't believe that men can assign to themselves that which is God's alone. For example, declaring indulgences if you do or say the right things in the right places at the right times, in the right order, as if God alone doesn't decide the fate of souls, but men do. The arrogance is breathtaking.
ReplyDeleteFor years, while I was still Catholic, I was relieved to never hear a word about indulgences. It seemed the PTB had sensibly decided to let that particular attempt at usurpation by humans of God's prerogatives quietly sink out of sight, as it did with limbo.
Then someone brought them back. Along with a whole lot of new stuff that puts human beings in the place of God. Too often this seems to be a form of idolatry - of the men of the church, idolatry of the church itself.
Nobody brought them back. Catholics never hear about most of that these days unless it is someone trying to swap nine First Fridays for a beer or me having snarky fun with pompous men wearing lace. (There is still interest, I believe, among the same sorts of Catholics who think Pope Francis is dead and we are led by a hologram controlled by either Bill Gates or George Soros, not sure which.) BUT it never was a Gotcha God; it was an attempt to explain the unexplainable to people who don't curl up with Thomas Aquinas or Martin Heidegger to read themselves to sleep.
DeleteCurling up with "Sein und Zeit" to send me off to dreamland. Haven't tried that yet.
DeleteThinking too much about existential philosophy isn't good for my mental health.
DeleteTom, I’m totally confused by your response. Know nothing about Heidegger. Wiki doesn’t help much. Since he was a Nazi, I don’t care to learn too much about his philosophy I suspect.
DeleteI was talking about indulgences which were brought back by someone. Indulgence collecting was big when I was a kid. First Frisays, scapular wearing, medals etc. if they had still been pushing that stuff when our sons were growing up, we would not have paid good money to Catholic schools for them. We only discovered the local Episcopal schools network with our third, but I might have looked harder when choosing schools for the older sons if any of the RC parishes were “selling” the notion of indulgences.
Maybe it was JPII? A lot of churches around here hopped on the Divine Mercy Sunday train, advertising all the activities required for an indulgence. Plus the World Youth Day tours from local parishes also pushed indulgences. The whole notion that men can claim that particular actions defined by them - human beings - can earn time off from purgatory is men - human beings- claiming authority that belongs only to God. A form of idolatry it seems to me. Replacing a God with the false god of a pope or institution.
I haven't really paid a lot of attention to indulgences since grade school days, when I used to try to post bail for deceased relatives on All Souls' Day.
DeleteI did take part in the one offered on March 27, when Pope Francis gave his Urbi et Orbi address at the time the pandemic was getting started. It was a solemn occasion, and I figured we needed all the help we could get.
The conditions for an indulgence usually include confession and Communion, and praying for the intention of the Holy Father, as well as a devotional practice such as the rosary or Scripture reading. Not magic or idolatry if you view it as getting oneself in a good place spiritually.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIt’s not a positive way to move people to become more spiritual. It comes across as a cross between superstition and a bribe. It also seems to be a way to manipulate the more credulous among us into believing men in collars have almost divine powers. It claims that human beings have the power to define what people have to do to receive an indulgence - basically saying that certain human beings have a power that is God’s alone. Idolatry.
ReplyDeleteAccording to this article, it is also seen By some clerics as a way to push people back to confession with a priest, (even though Priests aren’t needed since we can confess directly to God).
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/nyregion/10indulgence.html?referringSource=articleShare
I don't feel that the author of that NYT article from 2009 quite understands it. It's a totally optional practice, and if someone thinks it is wrong or they don't believe in it or connect to it, then definitely they shouldn't do it.
DeleteAnd yes, of course people can confess directly to God. That's what they're supposed to do when they are conscious of sin. But Penance or Reconciliation is a sacrament of the church, and yes, priests do encourage people to avail themselves of it.
The practice of indulgences isn't a big part of my life, but if other people find it helpful, it's one of those big tent things.
Anne, I will try again, keeping my metaphors to a minimum. First off, I picked on Heidegger because he is hard. I simply wanted to indicate there are people who enjoy heavy reading, but they are not your average pew sitters. (I once said during a talk that "no one" considers canon law bedside reading, and someone spoke up, "Fred does!" while Fred nodded vigorously. Never generalize.)
DeleteAnyhow, the interplay of God and man is very mysterious, and the people who have thought hardest about it are not generally comprehensible to people whose reading peaks out at Agatha Christie. For them, Holy Mother devised various "explanations" that seemed to keep folks happy until the day came when they were convinced that their ideas about coronaviruses are as good as Dr. Fauci's. I just finished Gerhardt Lohfink's book on prayer. I don't think I understood enough to explain it. Modern Person wouldn't want to know what Lohfink says, anyway, because Modern Person's ideas are as good as his. So we no have an audience who won't accept the comic book version and won't do the work of understanding serious theologians -- because Modern Person has a right to know better -- so the simple, comic book answers don't work anymore.
And no one has found something to replace them, possibly because there is no demand for it.
Now you, who have no use for Catholic churches, tell us "someone" brought back indulgences. And I, who spend a lot of time in such churches, say not so. You point to Divine Mercy Sunday, about which I do not want to go off on a tangent. I believe there are indulgences attached thereto, but the appeal is Mercy, Mercy, Mercy, a concept people latch onto with gusto. If I were to go off on a tangent -- which I won't -- I would say the same concept has resided in Sacred Heart devotions for centuries, but nobody knows about the Sacred Heart (although almost every church has it depicted in some form) because it's old and therefore boooring! People who are attracted to either one as prayer aids are not, in nearly all cases, doing it for the indulgence. I know you won't believe me, but there it is.
Tom, you should do a post on Gerhardt Lohfink's book on prayer.
DeleteTom, nice way to avoid addressing the actual issue. The men of the church claim that they have the power to shorten time in purgatory. Men have that power, not just God. It’s quite possible to teach about God’s love and mercy without encouraging a superstitious practice that also smacks of idolatry - men with divine power.
ReplyDeleteAfter VII, I never read or heard a word about indulgences.or limbo for that matter. Common stuff for 50s Catholics, but later, not mentioned. Based on my (minimal) research, it was JPII who brought back a notion that was better left behind. Apparently before he promoted the Divine Mercy stuff. BTW, I spent most of my life in Catholic churches , Tom, up until my 60s sometime. I am not as ignorant of The Catholic world as you seem to think. And I was shocked when indulgences reappeared. Maybe you never noticed, but I did.
If the church has to manipulate people into prayer, or to understanding that God is mercy, through false teachings like indulgences, it is in worse shape than even I thought.
Far better to teach spiritual practices of different kinds (lectio, or ignatian spirituality, or centering prayer, or meditations based on the rosary, etc) than to bribe people into with indulgences. Your tangent about modern persons and comic books and prayer that is boring to people is meant to say what ? - about the fact that the church is STILL teaching that men have divine power and can shorten someone’s time in purgatory.
I’m not a Heidegger thinker - So you might have to explain in very simple terms what you mean. I am just an ordinary Modern Woman who thinks teaching that indulgences are real is a firm of christian “con” of naive and trusting people that should be disavowed. Not everyone is as sophisticated as you are Tom. I know people who do the Divine Mercy stuff every year so that they can shorten their stay in purgatory someday.
Anne, Well, I'm never going to convince you that you are over the top.
ReplyDeleteKatherine, Explaining Lohfink's approach would strain my aging mind, which is currently wrestling with a non-functioning toilet, a barely functional oxygenator, a suddenly balky computer modem and overdue library books because the car I needed to return them with was undergoing a $7,200 estimate, which means I need to buy a new car. None of these matters existed as recently as last Friday. So my mind is somewhat scattered.
But if you lay hands on a copy of the book (Prayer Takes Us Home), don't miss the parts about Psalm 22 and the Magnificat.
Prayers for you, Tom! Fun when it all crashes at once.
DeleteI've got one ahead of it in the queue, "This is Living! A Practice of the Presence of God" by Bettina Schuller. It is based on the spirituality of Brother Lawrence's classic. But I will keep Prayer Takes Us Home on my list. I am interested to see what he makes of intercessory prayer.
DeleteYes, good luck with your challenges. We had an $800 car challenge ourselves this week. And it wasn't even the car that's next in line to be traded.
I suspect I wouldn't know if I were in the good spiritual place Katherine mentions if it bit me. I'm pretty much a spiritual dullard in many ways.
ReplyDeleteBut I don't have a problem with Catholic devotions of any kind because this isn't the Middle Ages, and the spirit of these things is only superstitious in superstitious minds.
As I get older and more decrepit, I think of praying that "thy kingdom come" is my new vocation. And that's what these devotions are for, that we *all* become one with the Divine Plan. Not sure I believe much in personal salvation anymore. That may be a heresy of some type.
I do still pray for the Beloved Dead on All Soul's Day. Posting bail, hee!
But I do ask God to look after their souls, wherever they are, and in so doing I remember that I have a lot of people whose lives I am thankful for.
I see a bit difference between the teaching on indulgences, and "devotions".
DeleteSome of you have a very comfortable certitude about your religious beliefs. I envy you, I wish I did. At one time I did.
ReplyDeleteBut one day a curtain came down. Literally from one day to the next, I went from certitude to whatever is the opposite. It was a shock. I had a number of favorite spiritual writers at that point, whom I continued to study in hopes that the comforting sense of certitude would return soon. It didn't. But I kept exploring. I found hope in some writers, Rolheiser, Nouwen, etc, but nobody really expressed exactly what I was experiencing until I stumbled on Barbara Brown Taylor. I read her book "Leaving Church - A Memoir of Faith". In it she describes her journey to faith, to the priesthood, and her journey away from it after 15 or so years of ministry. Since then I have read "Learning to Walk in the Dark", "An Altar in the World", and, most recently "Holy Envy", a book based on years of teaching about the major world religions at a small college.
Since I am a simple person, Heidegger and the like are well beyond my education and abilities. Taylor is a woman who is not much younger than I am. She writes simply and clearly and from the heart. So, although it does not matter here, a former Catholic who should probably just disappear from this site, I will provide a few quotes from the books I have cited - just to try to explain "where I am coming from".
“I cannot say for sure when my reliable ideas about God began to slip away, but the big chest I used to keep them in is smaller than a shoebox now. Most of the time, I feel so ashamed about this that I do not own up to it unless someone else mentions it first. Then we find a quiet place where we can talk about what it is like to feel more and more devoted to a relationship that we are less and less able to say anything about.”...
“If I have any expertise, it is in the realm of spiritual darkness: fear of the unknown, familiarity with divine absence, mistrust of conventional wisdom, suspicion of religious comforters, keen awareness of the limits of all language about God and at the same time shame over my inability to speak of God without a thousand qualifiers, doubt about the health of my soul, and barely suppressed contempt for those who have no such qualms. These are the areas of my proficiency.” ―
Referring to churches in the following quote
“If you have ever belonged to such a community, however, you may have discovered that the trouble starts when darkness falls on your life, which can happen in any number of unsurprising ways:...you begin to doubt some of the things you have been taught about what the Bible says. The first time you speak of these things in a full solar church, you can usually get a hearing. Continue to speak of them and you may be reminded that God will not let you be tested beyond your strength. All that is required of you is to have faith. If you still do not get the message, sooner or later it will be made explicit for you: the darkness is your own fault, because you do not have enough faith.”
Barbara Brown Taylor, Learning to Walk in the Dark
And she has also simplified my goal now in the spiritual quest
"“I wanted to recover the kind of faith that has nothing to do with being sure what I believe and everything to do with trusting God to catch me though I am not sure of anything.”
― Barbara Brown Taylor, Leaving Church: A Memoir of Faith
So, Tom, I am unable to explain myself in terms that you understand - no Scholasticism, no papal documents, no Origen or Jerome or Augustine.
One thing I have learned as I approach old age (if I say "approach" it means I'm not there yet, right?) is that it's okay not to be certain about everything. But I pick my battles. I expect we all have our battles.
DeleteI have always been more comfortable with uncertainty. If I have a criticism about Trinitarian Christianity, it's the certainty with which denominations issue info about the Infinite. A lot of it is guesswork.
DeleteFrom an explanation of what people have to do to earn the indulgence granted by the pope (a human being) in the Urbi et Orbi blessing.
Deleteparticipation in a prayer or action that has an indulgence attached to it brings about the necessary restoration and reparation without the suffering that would normally accompany it. It frees a person from the punishment their sinfulness warrants as it is a remission of the temporal punishment a person is due for sins that have been forgiven.
https://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/story/meaning-of-plenary-indulgence-that-will-be-given-during-urbi-et-orbi-blessing/
Although none of you may have the suprestitious mind mentioned by Jean, it seems that I am the only one who is bothered by the claim that the pope can define prayers and actions that will cause God to suspend part of the sentence in purgatory. This is a man putting himself in God's place.
Does that not bother any one but me?
Anne, the punishment being remitted in temporal, not purgatorial. How long do you think the normal sinner spends in purgatory, anyway, and what are you using for a clock or calendar?
DeleteBarbara Brown Taylor has always been one of my favorites. From the quote, it sounds like she may be heading in an interesting direction, the one that the best mystics traveled. We shall see.
Katherine, I hope to be up to summarizing Lohfink on intercessory prayer sometime tomorrow. Here's a teaser from the book: "Ever since the Lisbon earthquake on November 1, 1755, and most certainly since the Shoah, prayers of petition have become problematic, and with them belief in God -- in a living God who acts in history."
Anne, I guess I see indulgences as harmless pastimes for people with nothing else to do. Usually the terms and conditions of the indulgence keep people at prayer and out of trouble for the time it takes to earn them. So, there's the payout maybe?
DeleteThere was an indulgence offered for visiting Bishop Baraga's tomb in the Year of Evangelization (or something). Raber was jacked up on going, but one of our parents died. The offer expired like a grocery store coupon.
My guess is that we earned our brownie points taking care of the sick parent instead.
I understand what you're saying about indulgences, but I think in the exchange re David's comment about Baptism above, the CCC makes it clear that that the Almighty does not sell fire insurance coverage in exchange for rosaries, novenas, indulgences, or baptism.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTom, the only purgatory that I believe exists is the one we create ourselves while we are alive.
ReplyDeleteYou have not yet given us your thoughts about human beings claiming to be able to grant indulgences that “ free a person from the punishment their sinfulness warrants as it is a remission of the temporal punishment a person is due for sins that have been forgiven.”
Everyone is talking around the question and not answering it. Of course God does not sell fire insurance - or accept bribes . I’m not so sure that telling people that the pope can do what only God can do is totally harmless. Untruths are not totally harmless, even if they are “white lies” that keep people praying and out of trouble.
It would be a lot better if people prayed so that they could deepen their relationship with God instead of hoping to get something for it.
Actually the concept of purgatory makes complete sense to me. It addresses the problem of people not being in a state of readiness when they pass over to the other side, but at the same time not being wicked or evil people. And what it actually is, is mysterious, maybe it is a moment of clarity when we face the not so great parts of our lives, if we haven't faced them already. Maybe it's like the 12 steps, I don't know. Equally mysterious is the role of intercessory prayer for the dead, and for that matter, the living. Which is why I'm looking forward to finding out what the author of Tom's book has to say about that subject.
DeleteAnd speaking of people we were praying for, how is your family who lives in CA doing, did they have to evacuate due to the fires?
DeleteYes, I hope your family is OK, Anne.
DeleteI haven't received in the RCC for 15 years, so I am not going to play apologist for it. I often find useful nuggets sifting rough my very broken faith or from listening to folks here.
I respect that you are being called to something else. It sounds like it has brought you peace and insight. I wish you joy in that.
I think we can say that at best the concept of indulgences is infantilizing, a conflation of causation and correlation. Like when I was little and my mom told me if I ate my bread crusts I would have curly hair. She knew she was safe in saying that.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThanks for inquiring. Fortunately the weather cooperated and the fires have been contained. In the fall, the Santa Ana winds are often strong. If there are new fires then, as there usually are, it will be a harder task.
ReplyDeleteJean, just as you are grateful for the role played by your experiences in the Unitarian and Episcopal churches in the formation of your religious and spiritual views, I am grateful for the role the RCC played in my religious and spiritual journey. I too find many nuggets of wisdom, insight, and understanding from people who are RC. Most of those whom I look to for spiritual guidance and insights are Catholic. However some are not- some aren’t christians. Taylor perfectly expresses my experiences. After learning from the wisdom teachers of Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam during the years she taught Religion 101 at Piedmont College, she realized that she still dreams in Christian. So do I.
There is comfort in knowing that others have followed the same path. because it is often a lonely path. But I could not stay in the RCC - because of what the church itself taught me. It would not be honest.
Purgatory is one of the few teachings made out of almost purely theological musings that may make some sense, I sometimes look at it as being a bit like the belief in reincarnation. The soul isn’t freed from human suffering/sin until a person gets it right. Christians talk of heaven, of being with a God forever. Hindus have similar concepts for what happens once the soul is finally freed from human bodily ties. Or maybe we experience purgatory while still alive, if one has suffered enough in this life to be able to face their lifelong failures, sins, honestly and without excuses. But with true sorrow and contrition.
Re the RCC infantalizing its members, including most of those in clerical collars, I agree. But it goes beyond infantalizing its members when it claims that one member, the pope, can assume powers that are God’s alone. The doctrine of infallibility, both papal and that of the magisterium, are other examples of human beings claiming they have powers that are God’s alone.
Hi everyone. Regarding the original topic: y'all are a good deal easier on that deacon than I would be. What in blazes is that jackalope playing at, making up his own baptism formula?
ReplyDeleteThis all is covered in Liturgy 101 during formation. You don't mess with the sacramental formulas. My patience with presiders whose idea of ritual is to do something other than the ritual, thus rendering it something other than ritual, is pretty close to zero.
From time to time, the diocese sends out a list of denominations whose baptisms aren't recognized as valid by the Catholic church. It's an amazingly lengthy list - it runs on for several pages and lists several hundred denominations. I mention this to further illustrate that any possible defense by this guy of "Gosh, I didn't know it made any difference" is a pile of moose plop. He knew what he was doing - apparently thought he knew better than the church he is supposed to be serving. For his sake, I hope his private little theory of the sacramental economy recognizes the validity of the Sacrament of Penance. He should hie himself there post-haste, and then undertake the appropriate reparation of personally apologizing to everyone whose sacramental life he screwed up.
"...denominations whose baptisms aren't recognized..." As I recall quite a few on that list don't even have baptism at all, such as the Salvation Army. Another is the Mormons, which at first is puzzling because they say the right words using the trinitarian formula. But it turns out they have, shall we say, an alternate belief in the Trinity, as far as Jesus being "true God and true man".
DeleteMy husband said it was certainly born in to him during formation that one did not mess with the ritual. I just think it's unfortunate and sad that the things people thought were settled and a done deal, apparently aren't. As Tom mentioned earlier, it definitely doesn't help the cause of evangelism. I wish they could just bless off the stuff that's supposed to have already happened, and say, going forward, this is how it's going to be.
As far as marriages, my understanding was that the couple married themselves, and the priest was the official witness of the church. Which might mean, some couples were validly married in the church, but not according to the laws of Michigan, since Jean mentioned their requirement that the clergyman had to be ordained.
Yeah I saw Jean's comment- it was a good one. It deserves further exploration. I don't think the state officially cares about our theology of who confers what on whom; I think it basically says, "your clergy are authorized officials for purposes of weddings, as long as it fulfills our requirements re: licenses, witnesses et al". Of course, as it turns out this poor priest wasn't actually one of the clergy ... whew, that could get ugly. Just think about complications re: inheritance, spousal privilege, insurance beneficiaries ... my feelings toward this deacon are not warming.
DeleteJim, I think you're right that the state doesn't care about theology. I'm sure they allow judges to officiate at marriages. The key should be "duly authorized". Since not all denominations even have ordination, it seems like the marriages performed by this priest should be covered. But then I'm not a lawyer.
DeleteI have been trying in vain to see if any reporter has looked into these marriages to see if they are legal under Michigan law.
DeleteThe archdiocese is just saying they're "reaching out" and telling married couples to call them of they are concerned, and, in so doing, drawing a veil over the status of these marriages.
If these marriages are clearly valid under Michigan law, the archdiocese should say so outright. If the marriages aren't valid under Michigan law, some couple will call a reporter steaming mad, and that will drag out the story making the Church look like it's covering up scandal again.
Honestly, I wish I could kick the dimwits who advise diocesan authorities on PR.
Our former deacon was an improviser, a blabber mouth, and often interjected updates on his wife's struggle with cancer after Prayers of the Faithful. He asked to be defrocked after his wife died so he could remarry. He seemed mentally unhinged at that point, and his wish was granted.
The deacon we have now is much better.
One reads about these people who get ordained on the internet so they can officiate at their friends' destination weddings. If that stuff is legal under civil law, they should be able to sort this out.
DeleteOnline ministries at least provide a credential, however flimsy. Fr. Hood, through no fault of his own, had no credential at all.
DeleteWhatever the Church says about the couple performing the sacrament themselves, it's going to have to do some fancy legal footwork to figure out a way to make it legal under Michigan law.
"As far as marriages, my understanding was that the couple married themselves, and the priest was the official witness of the church. Which might mean, some couples were validly married in the church, but not according to the laws of Michigan, since Jean mentioned their requirement that the clergyman had to be ordained."
DeleteThis gets a little complicated, and I free admit that, as marriage prep and Tribunal-related work are not ministries in which I partake (except insofar as I meet with wedding couples on the comparatively rare occasions I am given a wedding to officiate), I am not an expert on these topics and would never venture an opinion without checking. But here goes:
For various reasons, the church makes many distinctions between different categories of marriages. For example: it distinguishes between a marriage between two Catholics; a marriage between a Catholic and a non-Catholic Christian; a marriage between two non-Catholic Christians; and a marriage between a Christian and a non-Christian.
For a marriage between two Catholics to be valid, the church requires, among other things, that "their consent is given in the presence of two witnesses and before a properly authorized Church minister." Note that last phrase.
https://www.foryourmarriage.org/catholic-marriage-faqs/
My non-expert, non-authoritative opinion is: if Fr. Hood officiated at a wedding between two Catholics, then because (unbeknownst to him) he was not a "properly authorized church minister", the marriage is invalid; which is to say, the couple is not, in the eyes of the church, married, even though they intended to confer the sacrament of marriage upon one another when they made their vows, and fulfilled all the other requirements.
In terms of validity in the eyes of the church, it would be the same as if the two Catholics went to the courthouse and were married by a judge. The remedy would be for the couple to have a Catholic wedding ceremony with a "properly authorized church minister."
Or - there is also such a thing as a "dispensation from canonical form". Here is the example given in the FAQ above:
"he local bishop can permit a wedding in another church, or in another suitable place, for a sufficient reason. For example, a Catholic seeks to marry a Baptist whose father is the pastor of the local Baptist church. The father wants to officiate at the wedding. In these circumstances, the bishop could permit the couple to marry in the Baptist church. The permission in these instances is called a “dispensation from canonical form.”"
Could Archbishop Vigneron issue dispensations of canonical form to remedy this (unusual!) defect in canonical form? I don't know, but if I were someone married by Fr. Hood, I'd ask.
If I were the archbishop, I would make every effort to get pernmission to retroactively dispense from canonical form!
DeleteI have read that for a Quaker wedding, they just declare their intention in front of the meeting. If that is legal under civil law, the Catholic wedding in front of a mistaken clergyman should also be legal. Also, every couple has to obtain a marriage license. Could that act alone make things legal under civil law?
Years ago I read a book, The Child From the Sea, by Elizabeth Goudge, sort of based on fact. In it, Charles II of England was secretly married to Lucy Walter. Turns out that the priest who married them wasn't actally a priest. Which Charles may or may not have known.Anyway endless drama over whether the child of that union could be considered an heir to the throne. Short answer, no.
DeleteKatherine, no and no. Quakers have to have an officiant. A license alone is not valid unless signed by a qualifying minister. No church can dictate the terms of what it considers legal to the state. They can only stipulate who is a valid minister in their denomination. Fr. Hood was, for legal purposes, no better than someone dressing up in a priest costume.
DeleteI was married in a Michigan civil ceremony and wanted to comply with the bare legal minimum. It requires a waiting period, two witnesses, and an officiant who meets minimum state requirements.
I should have made my previous, lengthy comment even longer by adding this: the rule that, for a marriage to be valid (real) it must be officiated by an authorized Catholic clergyman, applies to that category I mentioned: a marriage between two baptized Catholics. I believe it also applies to the category of a marriage between a baptized Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic Christian.
DeleteHowever, it *doesn't* apply to marriages between two non-Catholic Christians (whose wedding wouldn't have been officiated by Catholic clergy in any case). In the instance of a marriage between two non-Catholic Christians, the church makes the default assumption that the two spouses are validly married. This is why non-Catholic Christians can't remarry a Catholic unless the non-Catholic gets an annulment.
It's worth noting that there may not be a doctrinal basis for the requirement for validity that Catholics be married by a Catholic minister. Here is canon lawyer and one-time prolific blogger* Edward Peters:
"The requirement of canonical form was introduced into Church life around the time of the Council of Trent and was originally intended as a way of heading off cases of secret marriage in which spouses, usually wives, were later abandoned and left without any means of proving their matrimonial rights. Over the centuries, it was also noted that certain pastoral goals such as marriage education could be fostered by knowing that couples would have to marry before a Church official."
https://www.ncregister.com/site/article/null_or_not_canon_law_holds_the_key_to_a_marriages_validity
Peters has called for the church authorities to revisit this requirement. In my view, this sad, dumb situation in Detroit (which happens to be, I think, Peters' diocese; I can't help but wonder whether he was personally involved in any of the history of Fr. Hood and the deacon who baptized him) should fuel that reconsideration.
If being married by a Catholic clergyman no longer was a requirement for validity, I *think* what would happen then, is that such marriages would be viewed as illicit (illegal under church law) but still valid (i.e. the marriage is still real). By way of analogy, this is how the church views "rogue ordinations" of bishops and other clergy within groups such as SSPX which are not fully in communion with the Catholic church. SSPX's bishops are recognized as being bishops (their ordinations were valid, because they can trace the "chain of ordination" to bishops who were validly ordained Catholic bishops) but they are illicitly ordained, which means that they can't take part in any episcopal duties in the Catholic church.
* Peters has not posted an entry to his blog, "In the Light of the Law", since April 1. No explanation is given on the blog. He could be in ill health; he may have given up on blogging; or - my personal theory - the seminary may have been shut down by the pandemic and he hasn't been able to access his office computer since then.
Ah yes...Peters. He strikes me as someone who likes to put the cat among the pigeons. Hope he wasn't involved in this. There are already enough problems in 2020.
ReplyDeleteYou are right that it is a sad, dumb situation. I wonder what prompted Fr. Hood to view his old Baptism video; if someone raised a flag about possible invalid Baptisms? Or was this the first inkling that anything was wrong? And if nobody realized there were any anomalies would it still be invalid? Kind of like if a tree fell in the forest, etc.
As I understand it, Fr. Hood viewed the baptism video many years ago, and innocently; it was then that he realized that his baptism was problematic. He reported the problem to his superiors in the diocese. Whoever was archbishop at that time looked into it with his curia and decided that whatever this deacon had done did not invalidate the sacraments. So the problem was known to Fr. Hood and the diocese for a number of years, but they did not consider it, as we say in the business world, a showstopper.
DeleteThe other shoe dropped earlier this year when the Vatican released a document which stressed the importance of abiding by the sacramental formulas, including (as I understand it) specifically calling out that the formula used to baptize Fr. Hood was invalid. That is what triggered the crisis. So in a sense, the Vatican stopped the show.