Watering Down Baptism?

 While listening to Personally Speaking, a  Catholic interview program hosted by Monseigneur Jim Lisante, the prelate host shared sua sponte that he recently was approached by two lesbians who sought to have their child baptized.  Despite being turned away at two other parishes, the priest proclaimed to the couple:  “There isn’t anything in the bible about being gay so it must be OK” thus he consented to perform the sacrament.

The cleric’s superficial scriptural analysis speciously seems to ignore Jesus’ perspective on marriage in MT 19 as a married man and woman become one flesh. That passage clearly does not include alternative arrangements.   But the conundrum is on the propriety of baptizing a child to parents who manifestly are living contrary to the teachings of the church. 

While I appreciate the pastoral inclinations, the scenario calls into question the rationale for the sacrament of initiation and what is involved in infant baptism. Ideally, baptism claims the person as a child of God with an indelible mark on the soul. But an infant is unable to make baptismal promises, so those proclamations of faith are made by parents and godparents. Thus, pastoral discernment is required of the parents and godparents

Canon 1255 anticipates that the faith promise given infant baptism be supplemented by the parents, godparents and community.  In Acts 2:38 St. Peter exhorts us to “Repent and be baptized” which requires a metanoia (i.e. turning away from sin) in those professing the faith.

Practically speaking, the faith must be nurtured by the practice in the home church as well as with the People of God. The difficulty is when parents are living lives that are manifestly and publicly contrary to the tenants of the faith.

Those inclined to seek the mercy of God would surely say that an innocent child should not be punished for the sins of the parents.  But baptism involve promises made in rearing the child in the faith.   In this scenario, we can assume that they are living as a same sex couple and have pride in their lifestyle.  If one of the couple is biologically the mother, it raises issues about artificial insemination or procreation outside of marriage. This would mean that a child would be expected to be raised in the faith by a couple co-habitating outside of sacramental marriage and with orientations that the church teaches are disordered? 

 Despite Monseigneur Lisante’s claims, the Church in Canon 2357 considers homosexual acts as intrinsically disordered.   It is unclear if the couple was civilly married but the Church does not recognize such unions as being covenantial or sacramental. Perhaps the couple was not church going and those pastors deemed the sacrament of baptism being used as a ritualistic rite of passage rather than a conferral of grace.

Near the beginning of Pope Francis’ papacy, the Holy Father chided young priests to not become “little monsters” doggedly adhering to doctrine but instead to focus on compassion, evangelization and inclusion.  In that spirit, pastors may be reluctant to turn away anyone from the Church, even if adherence to baptismal promises made for them seem tenuous so as to see if takes hold. This calls to mind the conversion story of Fr. Donald Calloway who was baptized at age ten at the behest of Episcopalian kin even though his parents were not practicing their faith.  The only thing that he remembered from his baptismal sacrament of initiation was the donuts they eat afterwards.  Hearing his hair raising testimony, the graces of baptism did not take from merely that liturgical ritual.  Is it merciful to give the impression that one is saved by baptism but has no context to living properly as a Catholic Christian?

Pope Francis’ encyclical, Amoris Laetitia, attempted to reconcile the practice of the Catholic faith with the Modern Family.  Pope Francis declared that marriage was between a man and a woman for life (para. 62), same sex unions can not be equated with marriage (para. 52) and that education is the of a child is the “primary right” of parents (para. 84).  It is hard to believe that the child would be brought up in the ways of the church in the aforementioned scenario, which argues against  a profligate administration of baptism.

Pro arguendo, one could attempt to apply the logic of Chapter Eight of Amoris Laetitia in this instance.  After all, Pope Francis opined that pastors ought not throw moral stones and be done with irregular situations.  In footnote 351, the Holy Father sought to reconcile those in irregular marriages (Catholics civilly remarried after a divorce without obtaining an annulment) with the Church through a circuitous procedure in lieu of canon law.  

This alternative approach required extensive pastoral counseling for the couple so they could understand the wisdom of the Church and conforming their lives to the teaching.  In conforming irregular marriage to the norms of the church, the couple would need  to be catechized and gain an informed conscience. If children were a consideration and couples could not easily separate, so they would be enjoined from marital relations in order to receive the sacraments. And the couple would be encouraged to join another parish so as to avoid the appearance of scandal.  Of course, that is asking a lot. But the Gospel exhorts us: “The kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel.” 

So how would this Amoris Laetitia logic be applied to parents of a child seeking baptism who are flagrantly living their lives contrary to Church teachings?  That’s the rub.  Those making the baptismal promises are more than falling short of virtue.  They are publicly living their lives contrary to the teaching of the Faith.  Amoris Laetitia anticipates some metanoia as well as a resolve to sin no more.  Is it reasonable to expect the child to be raised under the Church’s precepts, particularly with the Home Church defies the theology of the body and a sacredness of the covenant of marriage?  

In America, we fret about the lack of Sunday Mass by many baptized Catholics  and of the glaring lack of understanding of fundamental precepts of faith (e.g. the Real Presence in the Eucharist). So many poorly catechized Catholics are poached by Evangelical denominations since they hunger for the divine, but are sacramentalized but not catechized.  So much for the fruits from the Church of Nice. For seekers of Divine Truth, it is disheartening if they discover that were holy fools for playing by the rules because mercy to the unrepentant overrides all.

While it sounds merciful to baptize a child from a proud lesbian couple, sadly it seems that the child would be left as a spiritual orphan through a perfunctory ceremony which waters down the sacrament.

Cardinal Donald Wuerl on the Fruits of the Synod of the Family

In order to discern what Cardinal Donald Wuerl meant about the fruits of the Ordinary Synod on the Family, it was necessary to learn the term antinomian,

Mantilla for Mass?

At the end of an eight day silent retreat, a women asked me how I felt about chapel veils. As a man who had been totally raised in a post Vatican II church, the idea had never really crossed my mind.  I wondered if the questioner was trying to reconcile my  secular conservatism with fervent faith and presumed that my worship instincts would automatically tilt towards the tradition.  I answered that my parish in Georgetown was so Vatican II that mantillas at mass were (almost) inconceivable.

Viscerally, I presumed that the church veil was a Pauline prescription for Christians and was heightened to a hallowed out custom in the Tridentine Mass.  Historically, my instincts were not far off.  Per the 1917 Code, Canon 1262 mandates: “Men, in a church or outside of a church, while they are assisting at sacred rites, shall be bare-headed, unless the mores of the people determine otherwise; women, however, shall have a covered head and be modestly dressed, especially when they approach the table of the Lord.”

Yet in Inter Insignoires, the 1976 Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith examination of the  role of women in modern society and the church, stated that wearing church veils were no longer mandatory as it was not a matter of faith.  The requirement about mantillas was left out of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, hence the requirement was officially abrogated.  Even Cardinal Burke, considered to be a Church Conservative who headed the Apostolic Signatura (the Holy See’s High Court) confirmed that the Novos Ordo Mass does not require chapel veils but recognized the customer expectation for the Extraordinary Form (the 1962 Missale Romanum or the “Tridentine Mass”) is for women to be veiled but it was not a sin to participate without one

While wearing a church veil many no longer be mandatory for mass some women have chosen to veil themselves.

A sophomore at Christendom College in Front Royal, Virginia shared a thoughtful video apologetic with Fr. John Zuhlsdorf of “What the Prayer Really Say” on why she has felt called by the Lord to wear a chapel veil.


It should be noted that a couple of the women interviewing in the video were influenced by close contact with Orthodox Jewish communities.

I was impressed how these women appreciated the chapel veil as putting them into a mindset of reverence for the Blessed Sacrament.  One of the women equated her veil as being in a tent with God.  The choice of these women was not driven by thoughtless tradition or being holier then thou but a real reverence drawing them closer to God.

My discomfort with the chapel veil stems from poor Catechesis immediately after Vatican II.  But even when chapel veils were common in the 1950s, the neo-scholastic Baltimore Catechist approach inculcated the duty without necessary explaining the reasons.

While I have had some contact with Orthodox Jewish communities, my cultural experience with veiling is more colored by Salafists who go to extreme lengths to veil a woman’s beauty, but seeming to misogynostically treat them as second class persons.

As I mulled over mantillas at Mass, I was reminded of other things which are veiled in God's House.  There is the tabernacle, the chalice, and the ciboria. Brides are veiled at their weddings. Caskets are veiled at a funeral.  Hermaneutically, even the Real Presence of Christ is veiled in the appearance of bread and wine in the Eucharist. Veiling can be understood as not hiding things but as representing an aura of sanctity.

While veiling is a moot point for me, I discerned that it's fine if women find that  as a mantillas as a way to focus their spirituality and if it helps draw them closer to God.  That being said, the externality of a chapel veil is no substitute for preparing one’s heart for communion within the sacred liturgy.

 In Modern Manners– An Etiquette Guide for Rude People (1983), P.J. O’Rourke sardonically stated: “Good manners can replace religious beliefs.  In the Episcopal Church they already have. Etiquette (and quiet, well cut clothing) is devoutly worshipped by Episcopalians.”  Of course, that satirical stinger is exaggerated for effect, but I would want believers in "The Way"  to live their lives  by Joel 3:16 “Rend your hearts not your garments and return to the Lord..”

What is the sensus fidei?

h/t: Catholic Insight

Shaping Up Conclave 2013

When Pope Benedict XVI announced his abdication from the Chair of St. Peter as of February 28, 2013 at 8 p.m. Rome time, attention started to turn to the College of Cardinals Conclave which would choose the next Vicar of Christ.  While Canon 332 paragraph 2 allows for Roman Pontiff to resign of his free will, this provision of Canon Law had not been exercised in six centuries.  This brought some question in the procedures of succession.

Sede vacante coat of arms

Ordinarily, the papacy becomes sede vacante on the death of the Pope.  It is de rigueur after Pope’s death for the Church to observe a period of mourning and to allow Cardinals from around the world to gather for their duty to act as electors of the next Roman Pontiff.  In the first part of the Twentieth Century, the College of Cardinals acted expeditiously by starting the Conclave ten days after the Pope’s death.

Ten days of sede vacante before a Conclave may have  worked well when there were a three score of Papal Electors and when they were almost exclusively European (N.B. half of the Cardinals were  Italian). But such a speedy conclave was a de facto exclusion of Cardinals who were not in Europe.  This practice  did not take into account that the Catholic Church is world-wide and began to have electors scattered throughout the world.

The only reason that Baltimore Archbishop James Cardinal Gibbons was able to participate in the 1903 Conclave which elected Pope Pius X  was that Gibbons was in Rome during the sede vacante.  A Brazilian Cardinal did participate in the 1914 Conclave which elected Pope Benedict XV, but several American electors were locked out (after all Conclave has its etymological origins in meaning with key) due to ship transports not making it to Rome in ten days.

When two American and a Canadian Cardinals were locked out of the 1922 Conclave which elected Pope Pius XI due to slow transportation, the new pontiff quickly issued the motu proprio Cum proxime which permitted Conclaves to be delayed for another five to eight days to accommodate non-European electors.  According to the 1996 Constitution Universi Dominidi gregis under Pope John Paul II, norms for the papal election were set to allow at least 15 days but no more than 20 day of sede vacante.   But there is a strong case to be made for amending that norm in the case of a planned resignation.

Pope Benedict XVI gave 17 days notice of his intentions, which allowed Cardinals from around the world plenty of time to make their way to Rome.  In fact, a consistory (gathering of Cardinals) will be held on February 28th as a farewell to Benedict XVI which most of the Cardinals are expected to attend.

Recognizing these circumstances, Pope Benedict XVI has issued motu prorpio Normas nunnullas.  This motu proprio empowers the College of Cardinals to hold an earlier Conclave if all of the electors are present and if a majority of the electors agree.  This document does not mandate an early start date but merely empowers the Cardinals if they so choose to do so.

Per Vatican spokesman Rev. Frederico Lombardi, S.J, the date for the Conclave will probably not be decided until March 2nd to March 4th.   If the Conclave started prior to March 15th, electors would have time to deliberate and discern who should be the next Supreme Pontiff and still have time to return to their diocese for Holy Week.  Accelerating the Papal Election timetable is not a sure thing. New York Archbishop Timothy Cardinal Dolan has been outspoken for allowing time for the Cardinals to meet informally prior to the Conclave, thus he is not in favor of accelerating the timetable.

While no one knows at this time when the Conclave will convene, the participants are becoming clearer.  Currently, the College of Cardinals is capped at 120 electors.  Canon Law cuts off eligibility upon a Cardinal’s 80th birthday, except if that age is reached during the sede vacante.  When the sede vacante period starts, there will be 117 eligible electors.  Alas for Ukrainian Major Archbishop Lubomyr Cardinal Husar, as he  reaches his 80th birthday February 26th.  But curial German Archbishop Walter Cardinal Kasper celebrates his birthday on March 5th, and Turin’s Archbishop emeritus Severino Cardinal Polletto’s birthday is March 18th, so they both will remain eligible for the Conclave.  The Bishop emeritus of Rome, Josef Cardinal Ratizinger (a.k.a. Pope Benedict XVI) is over 80 so he is ineligible to vote, but Cardinal Ratzinger will fly off to Castel Gandalfo during hold up at the Papal Retreat during the Conclave, so he will not actively influence the pre-Conclave consisteries.

There are two notable scratches from the Conclave’s roster.  Indonesian Archbishop Julius Cardinal Darmaatmadja, the 78 year old Archbishop emeritus of Jakarta, has announced that he does not plan to participate in the Conclave due to ill health.  Cardinal Darmaatmadja will be permitted to join the Conclave if his ill health resolves.  Scottish Archbishop Keith Cardinal O’Brien, the Archbishop of Edinburgh has just resigned his office amidst accusations of  a sex scandal involving “inappropriate acts” with fellow priests.   O’Brien’s abdication makes him ineligible as a Cardinal-elector for Conclave 2013 and leaves the United Kingdom unrepresentated amongst the voting Conclave.   As it stands, there will only be 115 Cardinal casting ballots.

It should be noted that another important change to the Papal Election during Pope Benedict XVI’s reign is on the required majorities for elections for the Apostolic See.  In Pope John Paul II’s Constitution Universi Dominidi gregis, the initial threshold for electing a Pope was achieving 2/3rds of the Conclaves votes.  However, if a Conclave was deadlocked after ten days of voting, the election threshold was lowered to a simple majority.  

There was speculation by Canon Law  scholars that a prolonged Conclave might inspire some electors to hold out for the change in thresholds to choose a candidate who otherwise would not gain the approval of the 2/3rds majority.  In 2007, Pope Benedict XVI issued the motu proprio  De aliquibus mutationibus in normis de electione Romani Pontificis which reimposed the super-majority 2/3rds votes plus one throughout the Conclave.

h/t:  Anura Guruge