Wrong answer

How on earth can they not know the number of people affected? Shouldn't the parishes have been keeping the baptismal records of all the individuals who were baptized?

"If you believe you may be affected by the recall, call our liturgical hotline at 1-800-TRINITY to verify the validity of your baptism and your eligibility to enter the Kingdom of God and receive the sacraments of marriage, ordination, reconciliation and the Eucharist."

Jane, I wonder what the fast and quietly spoken car-dealership-like disclaimer at the end of their sales pitch sounds like.

"All baptisms are provided on an "as-is" basis unless stated otherwise. Baptism may not represent actual sacrament. Salvation may vary!"

This is a real blunder by Fr. Spence. How can he make such a mistake as calling these merely illicit? Now they not only have the problem of finding those who got jipped, but they need to re-reclarify the teaching to make sure people understand they need this remedied.

Oh, and a scary thought just struck me: what about people who have left the Church, find out they weren't validly baptized, and are glad of it and don't seek baptism. That's a major safety net that has been cut out from under them. God have mercy.

At first, I would be annoyed that I had made all those embarrassing confessions for nothing.

Then, I would rejoice, because now I could go get the whole slate wiped clean without mentioning any of it!

Jane,

were I to guess, they probably can't tell how many people this affects not because they aren't keeping baptismal records, but because those records wouldn't mention anything about the formula used in the (attempted) baptism.

True, but the parish ought to have a pretty good idea of when the practice was started - and in today's era of "Video tape everything!", concerned parents ought to check their old tapes to make sure.

But here's a question: can one presume that if the parents had the intent and desire to have their children baptized and were not aware that the sacrament was invalid due to the improper form, that God in his mercy would recognize that intent? I'm not attempting to whitewash the situation or give "blanket baptismal amnesty", but given the apparent scope of the problem (and only God knows how big it truly is), does anyone think the Vatican will follow up with a remedy that may include such a statement? So, in other words, could the principle of "baptism of desire" apply in this unfortunate situation?

LarryD,

Well this would not be a case of Ecclesia supplet, but certainly God provides and as has been said before we are bound to the sacraments, but God isn't and certainly his mercy can cover something like this.

Okay, my ignorance is going to show here, but when I was pregnant with my anencephalic daughter, one of the things we learned was that if she was stillborn, we could still perform a "conditional baptism" where we changed the wording a bit and that left it up to God's discretion whether the baptism "took."

The conditional wording was, "If you are able to be baptized, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." (So, just a bit added onto the front, but the formula still the same.)

My husband baptized Emily because she was limp and not breathing at birth, but right after he did that, she gasped and then lived for two hours, so I presume it "took." But my point is, might the people baptized under the, er, alternate formula be considered "conditionally baptized"? That is to say, "this will do for now, but you still should get it done properly ASAP"?

Jane,
A conditional baptism as long as it uses the form of baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit would be valid.

I wonder if baptism of desire might apply here, since the baptized (if old enough to have decided) or the parents asked for and intended for a valid baptism... On the other hand, being such an important matter (literally, life and death), there is no excuse to refuse the extra mile to make sure that everyone who was not baptized correctly seek proper baptism now, even on the off chance that they weren't.

First off, I'm so glad you had the blessing of having your baby baptized before she passed away.

....might the people baptized under the, er, alternate formula be considered "conditionally baptized"? That is to say, "this will do for now, but you still should get it done properly ASAP"?

No. The CDF statement explicitly said that, if you were baptized under either of the bad formulas (or any other bad formula of that bad pattern, presumably), you were not baptized at all. Not conditionally, not partially, not nada. You are not in need of being baptized conditionally; you are in need of a plain vanilla baptism. Period.

Now, if someone weren't sure that he had been baptized correctly and had reason to suspect not, clearly it would be a case for a conditional baptism.

Of course, we can probably assume that the mercy of Christ will take care of those unfortunate folk who had no clue before they passed away that they'd never been baptized. Similarly for those who have no clue yet that they are still little heathens. :) But those who do have a clue have a duty to remedy things ASAP, and with a real baptism.

I think what's confusing you is that, if someone like your baby is baptized in an emergency as a Catholic with just the water and words, etc., and not with chrism and the full ceremonies, it's usual to have the rest of the rite done by a priest later if the baptized person survives long enough. (So they can get all the extra blessings and exorcisms and stuff.) But the emergency baptism is fully effective, not conditional, unless you use the "if" part.

Also, just FYI for people -- apparently the Church thinks that someone who's been dead for hours and hours is still very likely not all the way dead, and thus is eligible for Last Rites/Anointing of the Sick. (Like, six hours and more -- I think I've even heard a couple of days from some people, though that's probably not very official.)

So there's every reason to believe that a stillborn baby is alive enough to be baptized, although the conditional form of baptism is a very good form of CYA against problems and so is a very good idea.

Thank you, Maureen. This whole "sacrament/nonsacrament" thing has me confused inside, and it makes me very glad I'm not God and don't have to judge the world.

Emily not only got baptized--we had the hospital chaplain confirm her. I don't think he reperformed the baptismal rite, though.

Okay, so my next question would be back to the parish records: while the records wouldn't record the formulae used to baptize the infants, it would probably be known which priests used which formulae, so if you had Father Oldschool, you'd know you were okay, and if you had Father Progressive you weren't, and Father Smith it might go either way.

(Another note to self: glad I'm not the one who has to take responsibility for all these souls....)