CDF officially ends dispute on "baptisms" by "Creator, Liberator, Sustainer", etc.

Today the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith answered two recent disputed questions regarding allowable baptismal formulas and what to do with persons "baptized" using them:

Made public today were the responses of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to two questions concerning the validity of Baptism conferred with certain non-standard formulae.

The first question is: "Is a Baptism valid if conferred with the words 'I baptise you in the name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sanctifier', or 'I baptise you in the name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer'"?

The second question is: "Must people baptised with those formulae be baptised 'in forma absoluta'?"

The responses are: "To the first question, negative; to the second question, affirmative".

In other words: "no", baptism may not be validly celebrated using the above-mentioned substitutions for the traditional "Father, Son & Holy Spirit" phrasing, and "yes", people baptized with this substitute phrasing must be baptized absolutely, as opposed to conditionally (conditionally would imply that their previous baptism might have been valid. The CDF says they are absolutely not valid).

Pope Benedict personally approved these answers. Cardinal Levada, who is in charge of CDF, and Archbishop Amato, the no. 2 in charge of CDF, explain the decision (underlining mine):

An attached note explains that the responses "concern the validity of Baptism conferred with two English-language formulae within the ambit of the Catholic Church. ... Clearly, the question does not concern English but the formula itself, which could also be expressed in another language".

"Baptism conferred in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit", the note continues, "obeys Jesus' command as it appears at the end of the Gospel of St. Matthew. ... The baptismal formula must be an adequate expression of Trinitarian faith, approximate formulae are unacceptable.

"Variations to the baptismal formula - using non-biblical designations of the Divine Persons - as considered in this reply, arise from so-called feminist theology", being an attempt "to avoid using the words Father and Son which are held to be chauvinistic, substituting them with other names. Such variants, however, undermine faith in the Trinity".

I'm glad the response makes clear that this false practice came about because of "so-called feminist theology" (theology is theology, there is no such thing as "feminist" or "masculine" theology).

And if you had any doubt about the theological weight this opinion holds, consider:

"The response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith constitutes an authentic doctrinal declaration, which has wide-ranging canonical and pastoral effects. Indeed, the reply implicitly affirms that people who have been baptised, or who will in the future be baptised, with the formulae in question have, in reality, not been baptised. Hence, they must them be treated for all canonical and pastoral purposes with the same juridical criteria as people whom the Code of Canon Law places in the general category of 'non-baptised'".

That's pretty airtight, but won't prevent the obligatory outraged editorial responses.

Trust me, they're coming.

{updated} To review, CNS confirms that people who have been "baptized" without the proper Trinitarian form of the Sacrament must now be "re-baptized" and confirmed. They must be "re-baptized" before they can be re-admitted to recieving the Eucharist. Furthermore, they must, if married, now receive that Sacrament of Matrimony. If any of them men baptized with this invalid formula were ordained to Holy Orders, they must now be actually ordained.

In short, it's a huge mess.

Plus, people who continue invalidly baptizing with these invalid formulas incur certain penalties. Protestants, to make another point, who have been baptized with one of these invalid formulas, cannot be presumed to share in Christian baptism with Catholics. It's quite a can of worms.

Finally, some folks have mentioned the idea of "ecclesia supplet" as providing a solution to the dilemma posed when people operate and live with the belief that they have received Sacraments, which, in reality, they have not undergone.

That isn't quite correct, but don't lose hope: the proper Catholic theological response in this situation is that "Deus providet" - God provides. Canonist Ed Peters explains how/why in this post (jump down to the section heading 'So where does that leave our penitent?').

He also explains the background to this particular debate, and makes some helpful comments today:

"The rules on baptism are meant to be followed"

You might recall when I blogged against using baptismal formulae contrived to avoid masculine nouns for Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I said back in 2004 that such ‘baptisms’ were invalid, and that people who received ‘baptism’ under them were not even Christian, let alone Catholic.

Looks like CDF agrees.

This type of invalid "baptism" was most notably practiced in Australia over the past decade:

• CathNews: Brisbane Archbishop stops "inclusive" baptism
• Catholic New Times: Cardinal Pell backs stand against 'invalid' baptisms
• ABC News: Brisbane church on notice over unconventional baptisms

And for a glimpse into the mindset that prompted this liturgical abuse, consider these lines from the "Australian Reforming Catholics" website (with emphasis on the "reforming"):

"If the words "Creator, Liberator and Sustainer" enable some people to come closer to the meaning of the Trinity, then why should there be such a problem if people have a choice about the way it is expressed? Our understanding is that not all people are baptised at the South Brisbane Church with these words and if some are assisted in faith through their usage, then there should be concentration on what is most important."

The proper way to approach the meaning of the Trinity is catachesis. The proper way to approach the reality of the Trinity, and of eternal life, is to call upon the Trinity by their revealed names in the sacrament of baptism. This is what is most important: that faith be founded on reality as well as feeling.

After all, feelings don't save - but God does.

Looks like CDF agrees.

[photo: Flickr user "praiseyah"]

Levada confirms CDF working on bioethics document

Briefly, from CNA:

"This morning, Pope Benedict XVI asked the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to focus on "the difficult and complex problems of bioethics." More specifically, the Pontiff drew the teaching body of the Church’s attention toward issues associated with reproductive technologies, explaining that some of them violate human dignity."

...

Among the "new problems" that require a re-evaluation are "the freezing of human embryos, embryonal reduction, pre-implantation diagnosis, stem cell research and attempts at human cloning," Benedict XVI said.

CWNews expands:

The Pope defended the Church against critics who treat the faith "as if it were an obstacle to science." In fact, he said, "the Church appreciates and encourages progress in the biomedical sciences." The pastoral task for the Church, he explained, is to "enlighten everyone's consciences so that scientific progress may be truly respectful of all human beings."

John Allen reports that this document will essentially be a follow-up to Donum Vitae (1987).

Allen also notes that the document may resolve a long-standing debate in bioethics:

Levada’s reference to frozen embryos suggests that the congregation may take up the controversial question of so-called “embryo adoption,” which has been much debated in pro-life circles in recent years. Essentially, one side believes that even though these embryos should never have been created, now that they exist, women should be encouraged to bring them to term, allowing them to develop as human beings. Another party, however, regards that as cooperation in a fundamentally immoral act, and worries that promoting adoption may simply encourage artificial creation of embryos.

The full text of the Holy Father's speech is available here on the Vatican website, in Italian.

CDF releases doctrinal note on evangelization

Running to Mass now, but here are the links:

• VIS short "summary outlining the main points of the new document"
• More complete text of the document's summary points.
• update: full text of doctrinal note inPDF format. {Ph/t: Amy.}
• Press conference remarks (Cdls. Levada & Arinze in English, scroll down)
• Catholic commentary from Rocco & Diogenes.
• update: Catholic coverage from CWNews, CNA & CNS.
• Mainstream coverage by AGI & TIME.

My pre-release coverage: "Curia all-stars to release document on Evangelization and Catechesis"

update: AGI is casting this document in light of the Russian Orthodox - Roman Catholic tension:

"This principal seems to respond to the worries of the Russian orthodox church, which accuse the Catholic Church of using economic means for conversions."

In addition, TIME magazine mentions India:

"Roman Catholics have also faced tensions in several states in India, accused by Hindu nationalists of aggressive attempts to convert Hindus."

Cardinal Arinze, in his "anthropolical considerations" of evangelization, highlights African Traditional Religion:

"Since I come from a country in Africa South of the Sahara, I would like to apply some anthropological implications of evangelization discussed by this Doctrinal Note to areas in Africa South of the great desert. In these regions, African Traditional Religion has been the dominant religious and cultural context for centuries. It is also from that context that most converts to Christianity in these countries in the past two hundred years have come."

Diogenes finds in the document a "timely rebuke to Cardinal Kasper for his deplorably wet remarks on the Anglican situation" and quotes his statement.

With Russia, India, Africa and England represented here, I think it's safe to say this is a global message.

Breaking: CDF releases clarification (confirmation) re: nutrition & hydration

Via Amy, the CDF responds to a request from the USCCB today:

First question: Is the administration of food and water (whether by natural or artificial means) to a patient in a "vegetative state" morally obligatory except when they cannot be assimilated by the patient’s body or cannot be administered to the patient without causing significant physical discomfort?

Response: Yes. The administration of food and water even by artificial means is, in principle, an ordinary and proportionate means of preserving life. It is therefore obligatory to the extent to which, and for as long as, it is shown to accomplish its proper finality, which is the hydration and nourishment of the patient. In this way suffering and death by starvation and dehydration are prevented.

Second question: When nutrition and hydration are being supplied by artificial means to a patient in a "permanent vegetative state", may they be discontinued when competent physicians judge with moral certainty that the patient will never recover consciousness?

Response: No. A patient in a "permanent vegetative state" is a person with fundamental human dignity and must, therefore, receive ordinary and proportionate care which includes, in principle, the administration of water and food even by artificial means.

Also published, a lengthy commentary by CDF on the history of the teaching that artificial nutrition and hydration is ordinary and proportionate means. More backstory when I get a chance.

Update: This is the first time Ratzinger, as Pope Benedict, has gotten involved in this particular question (as far as I know). CDF hereby has confirmed Pope John Paul II's teaching given in 2004 that artificial hydration and nutrition is, in principle, ordinary care and as such always to be administered. The CDF commentary specifically states, "the Responses now given by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith continue the direction of the documents of the Holy See cited above, and in particular the Address of John Paul II of March 20, 2004."

I'm guessing, but don't know for sure, that President Skylstad submitted this question to CDF because many Catholic hospitals are still ignoring the directive of Pope John Paul II.

Well, now they're ignoring the recent teaching of two popes.

Update 2: Reuters coverage.