The Washington Post (among other news sources) recently reported the case of a priest in Phoenix, Arizona, who for many years used a baptismal formula ("We baptize you . . . " rather than "I baptize you . . . ") that has been declared by the CDF to be invalid. Consequently, Church authorities have announced that not only are all the people "baptized" with this formula not truly baptized, but any sacraments they have receive since their invalid baptism (e.g., marriage, ordination, confession) have also been invalid. There will be an attempt to locate and inform everyone invalidly baptized of the situation, to baptize them, and to administer to them any later sacraments they may have invalidly received that have baptism as a prerequisite (such as marriage) and to validly administer those sacraments.
The comment count as of right now stands at 1207, and if there are any (including ones from those who self-identify as current or former Catholics) that are not mocking, sarcastic, or hostile, I haven't run across them. The top comment, with 230 "likes," is as follows:
Something wrong with that, seems like.
I see that Fr. Thomas Reese commented on an earlier case in Detroit saying (in part), "[T]he Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith needs to pull this ruling. It was a mistake and a pastoral catastrophe. It would have been better to declare the formula illicit but valid." Who am I to say who's right or wrong here, but after reading one hostile comment after another in the WaPo, I have momentarily taken a sharp right turn and feel in a mood to defend the Vatican. Some of the commenters have clearly not even read the article they are commenting on. Others make ridiculous assumptions about Catholic teaching (e.g., those of the invalidly baptized who die will go to hell). I am no expert on sacramental theology, but many incorrectly (as I understand it) argue that it is not the words that count in administering a sacrament, but the intention.
It seems to me that no matter how legalistic or nit picky the CDF ruling may seem, nobody has made any claim as to what God will or won't do. Priests who mistakenly use an invalid baptismal formula have made a kind of "technical error," and it is up to those who deal with technicalities to point it out and see to it that it is corrected. It is difficult to imagine (even for an agnostic like myself) that the God of Catholicism would allow a technical error on the part of a priest to get in the way of any person's salvation. But that doesn't mean those who deal with technicalities should not follow their own rules on the assumption that God will correct any mistakes.
And it goes without saying (or should) that shameful as the abuse crisis has been, it has nothing to do with the validity or invalidity of baptismal formulae.
I just posted an excerpt from the above as a comment on the Washington Post site. I will be interested to see if anyone responds to me!
ReplyDelete"And it goes without saying (or should) that shameful as the abuse crisis has been, it has nothing to do with the validity or invalidity of baptismal formulae" I agree with that, David. It's "whataboutism". I like your idea of saying that it's illicit but not invalid. To me, " We" could be referring to the Trinity. One can slice and dice that several ways.
ReplyDeleteOf course God is not going to let that stand in the way of anyone's salvation. But it should have been handled better. The worst thing that could happen is that people would be alienated by the idea that their Baptism was invalid and disengage from the faith.
I am remembering that Baptism of desire is a Catholic teaching also. And if you had other sacraments after Baptism, surely that is evidence of desire. I hope the pope will say something about it.
Some Protestants and disaffected Catholics see news about the Catholic Church and their thinking goes into various grooves: It's not Bible-based, it's legalistic, it's Rome worrying about the wrong things, Jesus's baptism must have been invalid because John probably did not use the trinitarian formula, WAKE UP AND READ DAVID ICKE, it's the patriarchy trying to control everybody, people in my Catholic Church were mean and narrow minded, blah, blah, blah.
ReplyDeleteIn my experience, looking at the "comments" section of articles is a good way to wreck your day. Probably why Commonweal threw us all offa the blog years ago.
In general, the comments at WaPo are best skipped. Somehow the NYT comments are usually civilized, even when the commenter is a trump supporter. I often learn a lot from comments at the NYT site. I’m not sure how they do it- maybe full time moderators?
ReplyDelete[T]he Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith needs to pull this ruling. It was a mistake and a pastoral catastrophe. It would have been better to declare the formula illicit but valid."
ReplyDeleteI agree completely with the Tom Reese comment above. The policy makes religion into superstition, that God is under the control of the words we say and the acts that we do. It is also very clerical, that we are all in the hands of the clerics who had better do the correct thing.
Why did someone in the Vatican decide to do this. From what I have read it sounds like they were taking a very literal interpretation of the sentence in one of the Vatican II documents that no one, even a priest, should change anything in the liturgy. Now that is a fine saying if interpreted broadly. As my liturgy professor, Father Taft said: "the people have a right not to be surprised or confused when they come to the liturgy." However, Taft, because he was an Eastern Rite priest, believed very strongly that the liturgy had to be adapted to the pastoral needs of the time by pastors. In fact, the Eastern liturgical books have so much material for the Eucharist and the hours that they are almost always shortened for the pastoral needs of the people. The original liturgical books of the Byzantine Rite are the liturgy as it was done in its fullness in the monasteries! So the current saying by some conservatives in the West that we should only do the RED and only say the Black exactly does not have much meaning in the East. The Service books of the local Orthodox parish have the pastor as their author with approval of the local Orthodox bishop.
Here's my understanding, and I would welcome correction if I am wrong, When a sacrament is administered, there is form, matter, and intention. The form for baptism is the words ("I baptize you . . . "), the matter (water), and the intention of the minister to "do what the church does when it administers the sacrament." If those three conditions are met, certain supernatural events take place. For example, in baptism original sin is removed from the soul and sanctifying grace is given.
DeleteWhen the CDF declared the formula "We baptize you . . . " to be invalid, they were saying, in effect, that in their judgment the formula doesn't work. An invalid baptism doesn't have the supernatural effect that a valid baptism has. The CDF was not making a rule regarding appropriate liturgy. They were saying that when using the invalid formula, there is no baptism. Since there is no empirical test to determine who is baptized and who is not, on what grounds can the CDF be shown to be wrong? Who gets to say which formula produces the supernatural effects of baptism and which doesn't? In the absence of any empirical test, authority must be relied on.
I think this article has an important point:
Deletehttps://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2020/08/26/explainer-what-is-an-invalid-baptism
The central question of the case lies in the matter of sacramental validity—in other words, the church guarantees that God’s grace is present in the sacramental act. Father Baldovin makes an important suggestion about validity’s meaning and impact: “Too many people think invalid means unreal.”
On this point, he stands in agreement with the Letter to the Faithful From Archbishop Vigneron of Detroit that addresses the case of Father Hood. Archbishop Vigneron urges hope when he writes that “[t]he Church, following the thought of St. Thomas Aquinas, recognizes that God has bound Himself TO the sacraments, but He is not bound BY the sacraments.”
While we can be sure that God acts in sacraments properly conferred, Father Baldovin said, the boundaries of God’s grace and power are not delineated by the sacraments alone. The deacon’s errors were meaningful and should not be repeated, he noted, but they do not necessarily limit God’s power to act.
The much more humble attitude of the Church in this approach would help many people. Yes, the Church and its ministers can make mistakes. When it does everything according to rules, it can claim God's backing for everything. When it doesn't that does not mean that God cannot and has not taken care of everything. We just don't know, hence the best way of being assured is to repeat the sacraments.
P.S.
DeleteAt the present time most people have much more faith in God than in the church's ministers to get things right. Certainly, if I discovered the formula for my baptism was wrong, I would not do anything about it. The priest may have gotten it wrong, but God did not.
Probably an un-nuanced understanding, but to "administer" the sacraments suggests to me that the priest's function involves gatekeeping and validation--discern whether the candidate is in a fit state for baptism, instruct the candidate, and oversee the candidate's vows with the right words.
DeleteSo a priest who doesn't know enough to use the proper words perhaps cast doubts on his ability to properly discern readiness for the sacrament and to prepare candidates.
It doesn't mean that nothing has occurred between God and the candidate, just that the priest's irregular language makes the Church unable to vouch for it.
I probably would get re-baptized if mine were called into question. The other sacraments, no.
"discern whether the candidate is in a fit state for baptism, instruct the candidate, and oversee the candidate's vows with the right words."
DeleteAll of that certainly is part and parcel of the ministerial responsibility.
I assume nearly all of the victims of this guy's incorrect formula were infants at the time of baptism. As infants are too young to be instructed, it is the parents who need to discern and be instructed; during the infant baptism ceremony, the solemn charge is laid upon the parents to provide the child with suitable instruction and formation as the child grows older.
But presumably many of those infants are now fully grown. The situation is now quite different; the victims themselves now need to discern whether they want to be baptized, and the church's ministers need to discern whether those candidates are ready. In theory, they could be put through RCIA, although I suspect pastoral provision would be made for that.
(I am using the term "victim" because they were, in a real sense, victimized by this priest.)
"At the present time most people have much more faith in God than in the church's ministers to get things right. Certainly, if I discovered the formula for my baptism was wrong, I would not do anything about it. The priest may have gotten it wrong, but God did not."
DeleteJack, I hope you don't mind if I make a few comments about this.
Regarding people not having faith in the church's ministers: I assume you're referring to the CDF authorities who have issued this unpopular ruling which will inconvenience many people who were victimized by this priest. But as I look at it, the minister who really let everyone down was the priest.
You may be right that people's faith in God is stronger than their faith in the church's ministers. But for most of us, how else would we know God except through the church and her ministers who are caretakers and preachers of her scripture, her spiritual writings, her worship, her sacraments, et al>? Like it or not, we're all tossing about in the same boat.
This is my view, and of course take it for what it's worth: our tendency to try to fit God into our own image and preferred characteristics is a real spiritual peril. The church provides a valuable touchstone and, when necessary, corrective to our image of God.
"to "administer" the sacraments suggests to me that the priest's function involves gatekeeping and validation"
DeleteRight, the notion of gatekeeper is hard to avoid, not least because of clergy who seem to comport themselves as dispensers of holiness (rather than, say, poor sinners who are here to serve the rest of us). It could be helpful to think of the minister of the sacrament as acting ritually in the person of Jesus. I suppose that could lead to its own monumentally ego-inflating self-image (a spiritual danger to which some other people contribute by their fawning and ingratiating treatment of clergy). But in reality, it is not any personal virtue or greatness of the minister which allows him to act in this role; he is simply fulfilling what the rite calls for. In exercising this ritual ministry, it would be very healthy for the minister to bear in mind that he's not worthy of doing what the rite calls for him to do.
I meant no disrespect or belittlement of the priest in characterizing him as an administrator or gatekeeper. He or his Church Lady minions are responsible for overseeing preparation for the sacraments, and that is an important job.
DeleteMy point is only that a priest who willfully freelances on the formula of baptism perhaps cannot be trusted to fully understand it or pass a coherent understanding to candidates or their godparents.
I have always thought of the priest as a representative of the Church, who prepares and welcomes people into the faith through its holy traditions and sacraments. He may do some things in God's name, but he is not God, nor does he have any powers that God couldn't bestow on any of us.
What he has is more knowledge, training, teaching authority, and responsibility. The priest who botched the baptism clearly was deficient in all three.
Hi Jean, I didn't think you were being disrespectful. And I took your point. I agree completely re: your point that clergy bring no powers of their own.
DeleteThanks. You and I don't have many points of connection, and I try to make it clear I am not criticizing the faith, just the people in charge who sometimes fall down on the job.
DeleteHow do I know MY baptism was performed properly? How do I know? That's rocket fuel for the old OCD. I'm with Jack on this. I'll not worry about it but trust in God.
ReplyDeleteI'm wondering how this guy got busted. Did a tattletale attend a baptism, and was video evidence forthcoming?
DeleteJust in case I ever have to say it, it's "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." Right? I'll trust you on this one, Deacon Jim.
DeleteYep, although we don't really do "thee" anymore :-). And you say the name before the formula. "Stanley Kopacz, I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit." "Amen".
DeleteDepending on your age, you may have had the formula spoken in Latin. That's one way to minimize "creativity" - nobody, including the priest, actually knows what he's saying :-)
Thanks, Jim. Now I'm sure. I may just print out your comment and keep it in my wallet. I still like "thou" and"thee", the English equivalents of the informal German "du" and "dich". Shame we jettisoned them. They do sound more friendly and warm.
DeletePretty sure I was baptized in Latin. In March, when the Easter water in the font was from the previous Easter. My parents said that back then part of the ceremony was placing a few grains of salt on the infant's tongue. Using a spoon which almost certainly hadn't been washed between baptisms. Good thing I apparently was a tough baby.
DeleteI was 26 when I was baptized, so I know it was on the level. Fr. Hall at the Episcopal parish was pretty strict about form. I did not like that I needed to be reconfirmed at RCIA, given that the words were the same and the Catholics accepted my baptism. Church ladies were unable to explain any doctrinal differences that necessitated that, and they were getting testy, so I just shut up.
DeleteSigh, so many points where I and they should have agreed that I was not fit for reception into the Church. RCIA can be a juggernaut that makes you feel obligated to go thru the motions because they have spent so much time and trouble with you.
So impressed by the caliber of the comments! Not much to add, just a couple of miscellaneous thoughts:
ReplyDelete1. I'm not inclined to cut the priest much of a break. This was not the case of a guy misspeaking once or twice. He said the same wrong thing, over and over, thousands of times over many years. One must conclude he meant what he said (which goes to right intention).
2. There is a paragraph in the baptism section of the catechism, which I am too lazy to hunt up but may later if anyone really cares, the gist of which is: baptism is the only means the church knows of to ensure salvation. As noted in other comments here, that doesn't exhaust the possibilities for God - but this is the only one the church knows of. I think there is a sort of becoming modesty in the church's declining to unilaterally declare all the victims to be baptized already: the church truly doesn't know the "status" of the victims. All of us agree that God's love and mercy are boundless, and if any of the victims choose to trust in it, I am not going to tell them they're wrong. But ...
3. The key fact for these victims is: they are not baptized. There are many good reasons for them to get baptized: they will receive the graces of the sacrament, their sins will be forgiven, and so on. It's a good thing for any unbaptized person to do.
4. In these cases, the CDF arrives at its judgments by thinking as the church traditionally thinks, applying reason to revelation. Often, that works well. But occasionally the church paints itself into pastoral corners, and it seems to me that usually happens via a consistency which is applied past the point of common sense. Thus: traditionally, nobody who is divorced may remarry; this is the conclusion of consistently applying revelation to all human circumstances. To Francis's credit, on that topic he has been willing to let pastoral wisdom and sense take precedence over a rational consistency. This invalid-formula issue could be ripe for a similar intervention.
Here is the paragraph from the Catechism I mentioned in my comment directly above. Every sentence seems pertinent to the discussion. In the original, the last sentence is italicized; unfortunately, I don't know how to reproduce the italics in a comments box.
Delete"1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.[Cf. Jn 3:5] He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.[Mt 28:19-20; cf. Council of Trent (1547) DS 1618; LG 14; AG 5] 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.[Mk 16:16] 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."
So church teaching has been that a lay person can baptize in an emergency. I have told the story before that my dad's infant sister, who did not live long after birth, was baptized by a nurse. That was a source of comfort to my grandmother. People who find out after years of believing otherwise that their baptism was according to an invalid form may feel that it is an emergency to correct it. Why couldn't someone baptize them over the kitchen sink, or dunk them in the lake, using the proper words, in front of witnesses?
DeleteWhat occurs to me is that if I had found out that I had been invalidly baptized I would not be fearful of my salvation, but it would be a source of profound sadness. And I don't think it would be fair to make people jump through hoops, like going to RCIA, if they already identified as Catholics.
One small disagreement with this
Deletebaptism is the only means the church knows of to ensure salvation. As noted in other comments here, that doesn't exhaust the possibilities for God
The word should be "believes" rather than "knows".
"The word should be "believes" rather than "knows"."
DeleteAnne, here is the quote from the Catechism which I was paraphrasing in the snippet to which you responded:
"The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude".
Your quarrel regarding word choice is with the authors of the Catechism and, ultimately, with the church.
Well, yes, Jim. I do believe ( not know) that the Catechism and the RCC do NOT. KNOW they Believe that baptism “ assures” ( seriously? Another poor choice of words. Maybe a lousy translation?) entry into eternal beatitude. Is eternal beatitude a synonym for “ salvation”? Maybe they need a couple of decent editors for the next edition of the catechism. Editors who are native speakers if the problems are actually translation errors.
DeleteI only read a few comments at the WaPo site. One interesting one - if people who were baptized without "valid" wording have died, did God refuse them "salvation"?
ReplyDeleteAnne - the simple answer is: nobody on earth knows for certain. The church teaches that there are categories of non-baptized persons who can be saved (e.g. baptism by desire, baptism by blood), and I haven't heard that other categories aren't possible.
DeleteHow might a Synodal Church face this question very differently?
ReplyDeleteA truly synodal church would begin by consulting the laity. Is this issue really a practical problem for significant numbers of the laity? Do we have laity going around questioning whether or not they were validly baptized and asking priests if they should be baptized again? Or do we merely have a few laity who are concerned that some priests at some time and places have used the “we” form? I think it is the last.
A truly synodal church would then consult clergy. Are there many priests, and deacons using the “We” or other irregular words for baptism? Are any refusing to change their practice when they are asked by the bishop to cease using the “we” form? Why are they using the “we” form? How are they explaining the “we” form as part of their sacramental catechesis? In other words, are they giving poor catechesis about the sacrament? Is there any evidence of evidence of any organized movement promoting the “we” form, or is this merely a problem of some individual clergy acting with little or no coordination? I think it is the latter.
After consulting their priests and the laity, bishops should then ask themselves if this is merely a problem of some priests, or some dioceses, or some countries. Are any bishops or countries having such a problem of getting the clergy to observe the correct form that they need a ruling from Rome declaring the “we” form not only illicit but also invalid? Are they having significant numbers of laity that are disturbed about their baptism that they need a definite ruling from Rome on the issue? Isn’t all this really a local problem of a few clergy and a few laity that could be solved by the bishop locally without much fuss? That is what I think should have been done.
The problem, of course, is that we are on a journey from a very authoritarian clerical church to a synodal church which trusts that God is present in the whole church not simply in clergy or the hierarchy, but also in the sense of faith of the people of God. I think that most of God’s people share my belief that God did indeed baptize these people and was present in all the sacraments of their lives even if the clergy are unwilling to affirm that although they recognize that God could have done that. Most of us have spent most of our lives with good people who are not Catholics, or were former Catholics, or even are not religious. So, while Christ may be present within Catholicism, the Spirit abounds in the world.
This story is full of clericalism and the notion that the faithful are completely dependent upon the clergy and following their rules, and if any rule is bent all hell may break loose. It is not an attractive picture of Catholicism. It will not bring many people into the Church; it will likely affirm the decisions of many people who have left the church, and it may be the final straw that causes more to leave the Church.
Maybe I'm missing the point, but I don't think points of doctrine should be decided by the laity's opinions. Certainly that's not how the Anglican communion operates. They appt bishops using a bottom-up approach, but the laity stays out of dogma decisions.
DeleteThe Orthodox formula which we accept is:
Delete"The servant of God [Name] is baptized in the name of the Father [immerse, or pour]. Amen. And of the Son [immerse, or pour]. Amen. And of the Holy Spirit [immerse, or pour]. Amen"; other acceptable forms include "Let this servant of Christ be baptized..." or "This person is baptized by my hands..." Roman Catholics use the form "I baptize you..." However, neither church repeats baptisms performed by the other.
So the "I" which we use in the Roman Rite is not very critical. The Church could if it wanted use the form "we." There is nothing in divine revelation that prevents that. This is not really an argument about the best formula, it is a pastor question about whether to punish innocent people by essentially annulling their baptisms.
Jack, I don't think it's "I" per se, it's the difference in meaning between "I" and "we".
DeleteIt's interesting that the Orthodox formulas are all in the passive voice. But who is, by implication, baptizing the infant? Jesus? The Trinity? The church? The family? Someone else?
"This person is baptized by my hands..." I note the phrase "...our hands..." isn't given as an acceptable form. But that seems closest to what this priest had done.
Jack - I largely agree with your point about a synodal process. I agree with Jean that those vested with a stewardship responsibility (in this case, the college of bishops with their head the pope) need to be the stewards who make the final decision, but they should listen and converse as you described.
DeleteYou characterized what is happening as clerical. You may be right. From my view, they CDF is following the traditional understanding of sacraments (from Aquinas?) regarding form, matter and intent. Is that understanding intrinsically clerical? Well ... certainly, it is clergy who have propagated that understanding. On the other hand, there are at least two sacraments, baptism and matrimony, in which laypersons may confer sacraments. To be sure, for baptism it is only in exceptional circumstances, and for matrimony the church has sort of tacked on a clerical requirement for Catholics who marry (must be in church and officiated by a member of the clergy). But that last requirement isn't scriptural and it's only been in place for a few hundred years, as I understand it.
One of the comments at the America site - paraphrasing - these clerics probably would say that Jesus's baptism by John was both illicit and invalid.
DeleteI think there is a notion in some Catholic circles that there is a wonderful reservior of untapped wisdom residing in the laity.
ReplyDeleteHaving seen catechesis done very poorly by lay people who are dismissive, narrow, and sometimes wrong, I can't help feeling that letting lay people have more say isn't such a great idea.
In my view, the Church needs more and better priests, deacons, and bishops who are not disconnected from "real" life. They need to have a servant mentality and they need to know and empathize with the problems of "real" people.
Very few virgin boys of 26 cosseted in seminaries for 10 years are going to be priests or bishops who understand "real" life.
Poor priestly formation is what leads to freelancing with the sacraments. And poor priestly formation is what leads to legalistic rules that tell a bunch of people that they aren't truly baptized because nothing matters except what the priest said.
I hasten to add that I have no beef with Catholic doctrine, only with the way it forms its clergy.
DeleteJean, I agree with you that lay people are not necessarily any wiser than clergy. And poor priestly formation has been a problem.
DeleteI am noticing lately that many new priests have worked in a secular job for a few years before discerning a vocation and entering seminary. I think this kind of experience could be a good thing.
Well, then everyone could use some improvement, priests AND laity. I've gotten inspiration from Catholic thinkers, not ALL who've had "father" before their name.
DeleteYes, we all need constant improvement! In my time away from this site, I was doing more listening than blabbing and more praying than bitching. As life breaks your heart, God still talks to you. But I am demanding and argumentative. I find myself very attached to the Psalmist, who seems to have had similar tendencies ...
DeleteJean - “As life breaks your heart, God still talks to you”
DeleteI’ve never been a serious poetry fan. My taste in poetry runs to simplicity rather than sophistication or complexity. A few years ago I stumbled on Mary Oliver’s poetry.
Your comment made me think of this poem - short, simple and true.
The Uses of Sorrow | Mary Oliver
(In my sleep I dreamed this poem)
Someone I loved once gave me
a box full of darkness.
It took me years to understand
that this, too, was a gift.
Mary Oliver is a lovely writer. I think we all have the choice to allow darkness to transform us for good or ill. But I still got a lot of boxes that I have a hard time seeing as gifts.
DeleteShe did write that it took years.
DeleteThe basic premise of Robert Greenleaf’s life and his book Servant Leader is that large organizations are doing a poor job of serving society whether they are educational, or religious or business. He was very disappointed that colleges and universities were failing to make leadership formation central to their endeavors. Since he saw leadership as being based upon ethics, he strongly encouraged seminaries to become leadership formation centers for our society.
ReplyDeleteGreenleaf argued that servant leaders are better leaders, and that the choice of people to follow only leaders who prove themselves servant leaders was central to organizational improvement. However, he also knew that improving organizational functional was more than just having the right leaders.
He thought we needed major changes in how organizations operate. The first of these was to have a board of trustees that was not involved in operations which strongly listened to its environment in order to set the goals for the organization. The trustees would monitor the performance of the organization under a CEO and senior staff which would have great discretion in how to achieve the Board’s goals.
The public mental health system in Ohio is very close to this model since Board’s fund but do not directly operate agencies. While the Board can give an agency more or less money, it does not have much say in the operations of the agencies as long as they fulfill the terms of the contract. The Ohio model works very well because board members are equally chosen by the State of Ohio and local government, and sunshine laws give the public great access to board deliberations. Also, ten-year county mental health levies must be approved by the voters.
Greenleaf put great emphasis on the roles of trustees as representatives of the public and the people served. In the Ohio public mental health system this has worked well ONLY because family members and consumers have become very well organized and articulate. Without them the top management of the mental health system would be just as isolated as most chanceries are. Mental health boards do serve the whole community, the taxpayers, schools, welfare, the criminal justice system, etc. since all have a stake in what we do, but we really would not get anywhere without being close to family members and consumers.
Without giving parish councils and diocesan pastoral councils the power to hire and fire the clergy and set policy, we could make them the conduits of the much-needed advice from the grass roots of the church and the community that the mental health boards get from our family and consumer leaders and our open meetings. This is what Francis is asking in terms of synodal government, and unless we get high quality public input from the grassroots, we are wasting a lot of time, effort and money in continuing things as they are.
A truly synodal church would begin by consulting the laity....
ReplyDeleteThe problem, of course, is that we are on a journey from a very authoritarian clerical church to a synodal church which trusts that God is present in the whole church not simply in clergy or the hierarchy, but also in the sense of faith of the people of God.”
John Henry Newman dedicated the final issue of The Rambker to this subject after the bishops had fired him for printing articles that they didn’t like. Censorship is a sacred tradition in the Catholic Church.
As you may recall, the title of this full journal “ article” was called “On Consulting the Faithful on Matters of Doctrine”. He presented around 20 examples of when thé laity got it right and the bishops got it wrong. The most famous example was Arianism. This article led to an investigation by Rome which lasted years. He never knew what the charges were, in typical Vatican style. I don’t think Rome ever made a final judgment. But many decades later Vatican II did come to agree with Newman on several things, and accepted the concept of “development of doctrine” and his belief that the Holy Spirit speaks through the whole church, not just the hierarchy and clergy, among other of Newman’s ideas.
Newman also believed that when a doctrine is not “received” by the whole church - including laity- that it was time to revisit it because it was probably wrong. This particular opinion of Newman is often mentioned when the church’s refusal to change the teaching on contraception is discussed.
Unfortunately even though the church has canonized Newman, it still ignores what he wrote in The Rambler in 1859. It doesn’t seem likely that the church will actually become a synodal church, and little will change, except maybe at the parish level if there are progressive pastors, which seems even less likely in the future than now. And of course, the American bishops have specifically stated that all of this listening and dialogue and accompaniment will definitely not involve changing teachings or structures.
So why bother?
Jack, I hope that your hopes for a truly Synodal church are realized, but they seem a bit like wishful thinking.
Jack - forgot this link
Deletehttps://conspirare.org/liturgy-of-st-john-chrysostom/?fbclid=IwAR1JaRw1pWXtNgXmjLwIiJcy8xEsouUA8T9Fo6bNJ5EWE85LLuHwxpqSqFM_aem_AfkJMzaVJ_a7gjO0jKd8HfAWvMtZH9r4ApHQgAdZ00VCfFybKukLzjdszhp9qfkJ61jVk6J3gU8eYNFgy5L2ctYwRWiQ5DU8IjniQaLP71jmGKNgOZj3ZjN_wNuasszGq4k
Stanley - I've gotten inspiration from Catholic thinkers, not ALL who've had "father" before their name.
ReplyDeleteSo have I. And from spiritual writers who don’t have Catholic, or even Christian, before their names.
A similar situation in Detroit has brought about the following results:
ReplyDeleteThe archdiocese said Deacon Mark Springer, now retired, performed nearly 800 baptisms at St. Anastasia from 1986-99. After the decree by the Vatican, local church officials said all were presumed invalid unless there's clear evidence that he didn't use the phrase “we baptize.”
About 200 baptisms were found to be valid, while 71 people stepped forward to go through baptism and other initiation sacraments again, archdiocese spokeswoman Holly Fournier told The Associated Press.
Another 47 people are making new arrangements, she added, but 455 still have not responded. Ten declined to participate.
“We reached out directly, mailing letters to everyone impacted using the most recent records we had on each individual. ... We’re eager to accompany anyone who comes forward," Fournier said.
She declined to make clergy available for interviews to discuss why they believe so many people haven't responded over the past 18 months.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/like-in-arizona-botched-baptisms-roiled-michigan-church/ar-AAU80NY?ocid=msedgntp