The big news in the local church in Detroit was the CDF's ruling that the baptismal formula used by a now-retired deacon at a suburban parish in Troy was invalid.
From 1986 to 1999, the deacon used "We baptize you" instead of "I baptize you."
In this rather good summary report on the invalid sacrament, the CDF is quoted:
"To say 'We baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit' does not convey the sacrament of baptism. Rather, ministers must allow Jesus to speak through them and say, 'I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.'
There are three points worth noting in this story.
The first involves a priest who was not a priest for three years, Fr. Matthew Hood.
Three years of non-Masses, non-confirmations, non-absolutions and non-anointings.
It is horrifying to contemplate, though we can trust in God to judge fairly the good will of those who sought and administered the non-sacraments in an ignorance that was far from culpable.
Though, ironically, the baptisms he performed were perfectly-valid.
The second and third points are not mentioned in this story but have to be mentioned.
Secondly, it appears that during that span of 13 years, the deacon did not always use the wrong formula. So, he performed valid as well as invalid baptisms, meaning that, barring videotaped evidence (as in the case of Fr. Hood), people might not remember what formula was used.
Thirdly: out of concern for validity, in 1999, the Archdiocese instructed the deacon in question to use the proper formula, and he immediately complied.
Buuuuut....nobody in the then-leadership bothered to fire the question upward or do anything to cure what they clearly recognized was a potential spiritual catastrophe.
"His 'baptisms' may be null and void, but we told him to stop, so it's all good."
If you want to growl at the formation process, go ahead. The church in Detroit has had more than its share of liturgical and doctrinal issues, and that most emphatically included the seminary at the time. If you want to be hacked at the deacon, fine--within limits. Freelancing with sacramental formulas should never be done. Sacramental intent is a low bar, but it can be lacking. Even when you use the right words (note the author). But the deacon obeyed immediately--and he's retired, too.
No, the real failure here was at the Archdiocesan level in 1999. That's who you should direct your criticism towards. The records should have been poured over with the assistance of the deacon and other parish witnesses, conditional baptisms given and the other potentially-null sacraments re-administered. Instead, it was left to fester, and here we are.
Archbishop Vignernon had all of the parish priests reach out during their Sunday homilies about the problem--and it turns out that the parish where we were attending Mass yesterday has a young man who needs to leap back through the sacramental hoops.
And I will not fault the Archbishop's actions here--he's doing what can be done.
But here's a disquieting thought: what about those who moved out of the Archdiocese after their non-baptisms?
We had a conversation with some friends yesterday, and three of their children were baptized by a priest who used this formula. It's really disconcerting, but at least they know they can and will work it out. But along the lines of your last question, how many children from families who were baptized invalidly are in families that have left the Church or were never really involved to begin with, and now their families don't know/don't care?
ReplyDeleteBottom line: please just say the black and do the red.