Should all men presenting for ordination be conditionally baptised?

[MNathaniel]

Unfortunately this is the overwhelming attitude I’ve seen with regards to this issue. I was blessed to have a priest and bishop who took it seriously in my case.

I’m still happy for your part that you had this experience. It’s a blessing to hear about from a distance.

I’m at almost three months now without the Eucharist or surety of any sacrament I’ve ever received, and I’m no longer angry. I have sort of accepted that this period of loss may be a just temporal punishment for my past sins (I can’t say I deserve good things, so in that sense this situation is fine – and I do still see other gratuitous blessings of God around me that I’m thankful for). And maybe God yet plans to bring something good out of it.

At the same time, the “it” will have to include how close to the edge this situation takes me in terms of trying to reconcile and understand what the Church really is, and how to be one of her members – and whether I even still want to be one. It really does go that fundamentally deep, for me. I’m not sure whether the enemy could have chosen a more effective weapon against me. The degree of mess I’m trying to sort through over here… anyway. I haven’t been publicly talking about it lately and will probably go back to same. But this thread prompted something, I guess. Certainly with regards to the fact that I do have an opinion on this topic: that if simple safeguards could ensure confidence in sacraments for all, and help anyone else avoid the situation I’m in, I’m all for those safeguards, and am mystified by the intensity of opposition to them.

 

[TMC]

I think all this hyperventilating about whether a priest here or there was properly baptized is (at best) a waste of time and energy.

 

[TMC]

Even given the fact that

Yes.

Sounds to me like something that matters.

:shrug If I get to St. Peter and he says that although I was baptized, and my priest was baptized, and the priest that baptized him was baptized, it turns out that the priest that baptized that guy was not baptized, that is a risk I will take. I do not believe a loving God will care about that chain of events.

 

[Pattylt]

Why isn’t it possible for voluntary rebaptism for those that want the assurance? Rather than instituting conditional baptisms for all entering the priesthood, just make it easily available and private for those with uncertainty?

Also, I would apply this to anyone who is unsure of their baptism. It only takes a few moments, it’s private and it’s certain.

 

[PeterT]

Short answer: No.
Long answer: Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!

It is not prudent to foster a distrust for the Sacraments such that would stem from a “routine” conditional baptism of all sorts of ordinands. Investigate a baptism the proper way, with a certificate and witnesses and affidavits if need be. Don’t assume a doubtful sacrament without proof! There lies madness! I can’t think of much else more damaging to newly-minted priests than having them go out into the world with the knowledge that TPTB harbored significant doubt about the validity of their sacraments of initiation.

And why stop there?

How about the Sacrament of Confirmation? Wouldn’t they need to be conditional Confirmed too?

The fact of the matter — unless there’s good reason to doubt — if the records of the church where he was supposedly baptized (their Baptismal Register book) shows that he was baptized, then the Catholic Church considers him to be duly baptized. End of story.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

But sure, dismiss the problem as probably just “isolated”.

I am sorry that you and others are having a problem, but I don’t see how giving a less than civil answer to a priest, who is right now about the only priest who takes the time to post here, helps anything. He did not cause your problem, and from a purely factual standpoint it is likely that this problem is affecting a small group.

 

[PeterT]

PeterT:

And why stop there?

How about the Sacrament of Confirmation? Wouldn’t they need to be conditional Confirmed too?

Yes, it has already been acknowledged and practiced that those who receive conditional baptism also receive conditional confirmation (at least, it’s the ideal circumstance, although if soldiers on a battlefield conditionally baptizing each other, obviously conditional confirmation cannot be done).

The fact of the matter — unless there’s good reason to doubt — if the records of the church where he was supposedly baptized (their Baptismal Register book) shows that he was baptized, then the Catholic Church considers him to be duly baptized. End of story.

It may indeed be the fact of the matter that, in practice, Church officials consider what’s written on a piece of paper to be “End of story”.

The question about the matter is whether that should be the case.

It is the case due to Matthew 16:19:

“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” — Matthew 16:19 (RSV-CE)

Hence, whatever the Church on Earth declares to be valid (in regards if someone did or did not receive a sacrament) will be considered to be valid by the powers above (God) in Heaven.

There’s no need to second guess the Church in this matter.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

. . . .

Given that most people aren’t going to think about this twice or lay awake nights over it like posters on CAF do, don’t you think maybe the Lord will provide in a lot of these cases?

I could lay awake nights if I wanted worrying about my own baptism, since I was a wee babe, remember nothing, and no one owned a home movie camera to record it, or I could worry that my husband’s Protestant baptism wasn’t done appropriately enough to give us a truly sacramental marriage although the Church decided his was fine for that purpose. I could also worry whether the priest giving me communion or absolution had a defective baptism so I’m not getting the sacrament I thought I was getting. Which in turn might mean the indulgences I thought were plenary were only partial, and the absolution I thought I got wasn’t valid and I therefore received my next Communions (assuming they were consecrated by a properly baptized priest) in a state of mortal sin.

Or I could just trust in the Lord to make whatever needed to come out right, come out right.

When something is beyond one’s control or pay grade, then the latter course of action seems best to me.

 

[StudentMI]

Why isn’t it possible for voluntary rebaptism for those that want the assurance? Rather than instituting conditional baptisms for all entering the priesthood, just make it easily available and private for those with uncertainty?

Also, I would apply this to anyone who is unsure of their baptism. It only takes a few moments, it’s private and it’s certain.

In the case of converts it’s the false sense of ecumenism I mentioned above, I suspect.

 

[StudentMI]

And it is the Church’s own ministers who have thus far prevented me from obeying her.

It’s quite a head trip.

It’s this among other things that played a big part in my doubt. If Catholics, especially priests, don’t even follow the teaching of the Church and just pick and choose what they like, what’s the point?

I can totally understand your doubt about the Church.

 

[Pattylt]

Pattylt:

Why isn’t it possible for voluntary rebaptism for those that want the assurance? Rather than instituting conditional baptisms for all entering the priesthood, just make it easily available and private for those with uncertainty?

Also, I would apply this to anyone who is unsure of their baptism. It only takes a few moments, it’s private and it’s certain.

In the case of converts it’s the false sense of ecumenism I mentioned above, I suspect.

If it’s kept private, how is it creating an Ecumenical problem?

 

[MNathaniel]

Or I could just trust in the Lord to make whatever needed to come out right, come out right.

When something is beyond one’s control or pay grade, then the latter course of action seems best to me.

I am attempting to do this (this is why, among other things, I have continued to encourage folks here on CAF towards Catholicism; at least, I have attempted to do so).

At the same time, I’m not sure that trust in the Lord necessarily precludes also speaking openly about a human-level problem that the community may be able to take steps in future to address more effectively.

 

[TMC]

Yes, this is approximately the rationale by which I will cease being Catholic, if I cease being Catholic. At least, it’s one of the key threads.

If objectively valid sacraments matter, we should do everything possible to ensure them.

The Church needs to do whatever it thinks it needs to do to clean up its own house, and if that means going around a re-baptizing millions of people that is for someone else to decide.

But the logic of it makes zero sense. A priest can be a drunkard, or a philanderer, or a pedophile, and a baptism is still valid, correct? A priest can even be a closet atheist, but if he is a priest and follows the rubrics, the baptism is still valid, right? But if the guy that baptized the priest got a couple words wrong, then its not valid? No disrespect meant to anyone, seriously, but at that point we are drifting out of the realm of sacraments and into something more like a magic spell.

I think the arguments in favour of “we baptize” being valid are persuasive, and I would prefer to, and by default simply would, trust that God works through such baptisms equally to “I baptize” baptisms.

I agree with this 100%.

The only reason – literally, the only reason – I’m seeking conditional baptism is out of attempted obedience to the Church, applying her teachings logically.

That’s fine with me, and your choice. I don’t even know the name of the priest that baptized me, but if I find out tomorrow that he was not “really baptized”, or even if I learn that he was not baptized AND that he ALSO said all the wrong words, I will still not lose a moment of sleep over it.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

As I said, I sympathize with the converts who would like to have a conditional baptism and a re-confirmation and are having trouble getting it. All I can say is if you knock on enough priest’s doors, you should be able to find one who will assist you.

 

[Pattylt]

But if the guy that baptized the priest got a couple words wrong, then its not valid? No disrespect meant to anyone, seriously, but at that point we are drifting out of the realm of sacraments and into something more like a magic spell.

I agree with the sentiment here but it was the Church Herself that declared these baptisms invalid, correct? On the one hand She made it an issue and on the other is dragging Her feet on just quietly resolving it. This is my perspective only…just to be clear.

 

[MNathaniel]

In effect, @TMC, the question for me is whether I choose to follow my own judgment, or follow the judgment of the Church.

In this case, the highest authorized interpretation of the Church on this topic (therefore the “judgment of the Church”) seems to be that encapsulated in the CDF ruling signed off on by Pope Francis. According, apparently, to Donum Veritatis, 18 (see also §361),

“…the documents issued by [the CDF] expressly approved by the pope participate in the ordinary magisterium of the successor of Peter.”

So for me to not seek to conform myself to this teaching would be to put my own private judgment above the ordinary magisterium of the Pope. For myself (again, speaking from my very specific situation with a specific evidence-based reason for doubting the validity of baptism attempted), I can’t see the way to being Catholic and doing that. Maybe others can. I can’t. For me, to intentionally decide to disregard the magisterial authority of the Pope and substitute my own beliefs instead, would be essentially to become Protestant.

So I’ve been trying to be obedient to this magisterial teaching. And it’s just a strange, human journey, trying to get that done.

With the peculiar plus side of learning a whole lot more about the human side of the Church (and about ecumenical agreements and the complexity of magisterial authority) than I understood before. Learning is good.

 

[Gorgias]

It’s a circumstance testing my very ability to be Catholic.

Yeah, but the circumstance is “the presumption of invalidity of baptisms.” That’s a troubling presumption, don’t you think?

 

[TMC]

I agree with the sentiment here but it was the Church Herself that declared these baptisms invalid, correct? On the one hand She made it an issue and on the other is dragging Her feet on just quietly resolving it. This is my perspective only…just to be clear.

I understand. To be clear, I am not taking any position on what is correct under Church teaching. I am only saying how I would deal with the situation personally; which matters more to me, frankly, than whatever the formal Church position is. I probably have less regard for the Church’s view on this than most Catholics, though.

 

[Pattylt]

MNathaniel:

It’s a circumstance testing my very ability to be Catholic.

Yeah, but the circumstance is “the presumption of invalidity of baptisms.” That’s a troubling presumption, don’t you think?

Not if you know your baptism was invalid. That’s the problem. There are people that know for a fact that their baptism was invalid yet the church is dragging their heels…to put it mildly…in rectifying these cases. Note, I’m not not talking about those that suspect or aren’t sure or maybe…there are cases where they know it…and can’t get anyone in the church to fix it or, even worse, pat them on the head and tell them not to be concerned? Why not just quietly and privately fix it! Why is the church suddenly concerned that invalid baptisms occurred and simultaneously unconcerned that people want it fixed?

 

[CTBcin]

I personally think people should be conditionally baptized upon entering the Church. Why not? Some false sense of ecumenism?

This has never been the Church’s position. A valid trinitarian baptism is a valid trinitarian baptism, regardless of who administered it.

This was settled all the way back in the early Church.