{"id":6388,"date":"2008-03-01T08:33:00","date_gmt":"2008-03-01T14:33:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/doxaweb.com\/blog\/?p=6388"},"modified":"2021-06-20T03:44:21","modified_gmt":"2021-06-20T08:44:21","slug":"watershed-moment-for-feminists-in-the-catholic-church","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/doxaweb.com\/blog\/2008\/03\/01\/watershed-moment-for-feminists-in-the-catholic-church\/","title":{"rendered":"watershed moment for feminists in the Catholic Church"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

This week, the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith invited believers to come to the waters of baptism\u2026 but to reject the baptisms of WATER<\/a><\/strong>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

VATICAN CITY, 29 FEB 2008 (VIS) — 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”. Benedict XVI, during his recent audience with Cardinal William Joseph Levada, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, approved these responses, which were adopted at the ordinary session of the congregation, and ordered their publication. The text of the responses bears the signatures of Cardinal Levada and of Archbishop Angelo Amato S.D.B., secretary of the dicastery. 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”. “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'”. <\/p>Vatican Information Service<\/a><\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The beauty of this response is that it underlines the truth that persons can not be reduced to functional realities, and highlights the priority of being<\/em> over doing<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For instance, the word “wife” bears a much richer, more personal meaning than “intimacy provider” or “baby maker.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The deepest essence of personhood is to be in relation<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What will this response mean, in practical terms, for the Church? Here are a few of my predictions:<\/p>\n\n\n\n