Catholic Bishops to withhold Parish information from Mormons to prevent re-baptisms

[dangermom]

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Technical note: In the RCC (and, I am pretty sure among the Orthodox, but I could be mistaken), Baptism is not reserved to any special group or minister. It has nothing to do with Apostolic Succession or the priesthood. Any baptism performed in the Trinitarian manner with the intention of conferring the sacrament on the person baptized is considered legitimate. This means that if a pagan was asked to baptize a person and they carried it out in the proper format with the proper intentions, it would be a legitimate baptism. [snip]
Protestant baptisms have always been accepted as valid, provided the Protestant denomination professed a view of the Trinity that concurred with that of the RCC.

[/quote]
Wow, this I did not understand at all. It never occurred to me. (And I don’t get how the RCC could always have accepted Protestant baptisms–weren’t they killing each other over religion for a while there? There were wars and screaming and name-calling and excommunications and some burnings–so I don’t get that.)

Let me see if I can get this straight. For Mormons, all ordinances are connected to the priesthood. We accept all seven sacraments, as Catholics do: baptism, eucharist, reconciliation, confirmation, marriage, holy orders, anointing of the sick. All of these must be performed by someone holding the priesthood, which has been passed down by the laying on of hands from someone else who already has the priesthood, which can be traced directly to Peter and Jesus Christ. (You get a record stating the chain of succession.) It simply never occurred to me that any of these, in RCC practice, could be done by people who aren’t priests. So if anyone can do a valid baptism, can anyone bless the eucharist? What is it that only priests can do? What makes the difference–why would some sacraments be performed by anyone, but not others?

… And, really, which is more insulting? declaring that the RCC records are closed to that process because it appears to support a theological error? Or saying, “Sure. They can take what they want because it is all superstitious hokum anyway.”?* At least this decision treats the CoJCoLDS as a serious religion that the RCC believes to be in error.

As a fan of genealogy, I find the decision disappointing, but I can certainly see the logic.

Well, we’d prefer the superstitious hokum option, since we don’t see it as an insult. Of course the RCC doesn’t accept our ordinances, what else would they do? That’s completely fair. But we don’t see “treating it as a serious religion” to be the same thing as “accepting their ordinances as valid.” We routinely feel respect for and quite like Catholics (or others), while simultaneously believing that they don’t have valid baptisms–so maybe that’s a POV that others don’t share, I don’t know. It puzzles me as to how you could accept a baptism from another church.

I can quite see the logic behind the decision and I doubt that the LDS Church will do anything about it. It’s just kind of a bummer.

[TWDuke]

[QUOTE=dangermom]
Well, it seems to me that if God is so capricious and arbitrary as to punish people for something other people did, then we’re all up a creek anyway and it doesn’t matter what Mormons do or don’t do.

The LDS view is that everyone gets a chance to learn truth, whether in this life or the next. We agree with the Bible (and with Catholics) that a valid Christian baptism is essential to salvation–we differ on who has the authority to give such a baptism and on when that baptism can be done.
[/QUOTE]
I see a logical disconnect between the first and third sentences.

[Guinastasia]

dangermom, may I ask if you have ever done a re-baptism?

[Sarahfeena]

[QUOTE=dangermom]
Wow, this I did not understand at all. It never occurred to me. (And I don’t get how the RCC could always have accepted Protestant baptisms–weren’t they killing each other over religion for a while there? There were wars and screaming and name-calling and excommunications and some burnings–so I don’t get that.)

Let me see if I can get this straight. For Mormons, all ordinances are connected to the priesthood. We accept all seven sacraments, as Catholics do: baptism, eucharist, reconciliation, confirmation, marriage, holy orders, anointing of the sick. All of these must be performed by someone holding the priesthood, which has been passed down by the laying on of hands from someone else who already has the priesthood, which can be traced directly to Peter and Jesus Christ. (You get a record stating the chain of succession.) It simply never occurred to me that any of these, in RCC practice, could be done by people who aren’t priests. So if anyone can do a valid baptism, can anyone bless the eucharist? What is it that only priests can do? What makes the difference–why would some sacraments be performed by anyone, but not others?
[/QUOTE]
I should have explained this more thoroughly, thanks to tomndebb for filling in the details. Baptism I think is the only sacrament that doesn’t require a priest (although it is preferred). But I think the basic point tomndebb was making was the same one I did earlier, that priestly succession isn’t the issue in regards to which baptisms the RCC accepts as valid, but the theology.

Well, we’d prefer the superstitious hokum option, since we don’t see it as an insult. Of course the RCC doesn’t accept our ordinances, what else would they do? That’s completely fair. But we don’t see “treating it as a serious religion” to be the same thing as “accepting their ordinances as valid.” We routinely feel respect for and quite like Catholics (or others), while simultaneously believing that they don’t have valid baptisms–so maybe that’s a POV that others don’t share, I don’t know. It puzzles me as to how you could accept a baptism from another church.

I think the basic answer to how you can accept a baptism from another church is that you believe that this other church worships the same god. The RCC differs from the various Protestant churches on various issues, but, as I said earlier, they do not differ on their definition of the Trinity. So, we may have different ways of worshipping God, but it is all the same God. Baptisms are done in the name of that God, and that’s all that is required for a valid baptism. By that definition of the sacrament, there’s no reason to consider Protestant bapstims invalid.

[mswas]

I always find it funny how indignant atheists get over the silly little rituals they don’t believe in. Why does it matter what Mormons do after you’re dead? You’re dead right? Who cares? The way people go on about how offensive post-humous baptisms are, you’d think they actually put some stock in the idea that they accomplished something. The offense is almost religious.

The Mormons can posthumously baptize me if they like. At worst they get to do a silly little ritual that makes them feel good, at best they’re right and now I get to go to Heaven! Yippy!

[Skald_the_Rhymer]

[QUOTE=Voyager]
The arrogance comes in from one **ancestor ** out of thousands thinking he can make this decision. .
[/QUOTE]

I think you mean “descendent.”

[mswas]

[QUOTE=hotflungwok]
Oh yeah? Well I’m going to create an Athiest baptism, and I’m gonna baptize people before they’re born.
[/QUOTE]

You should unBaptize people, and use the Mormon records to do it. You could do it in a real easy way. Just get a printout of the records and burn them, and say that anyone who was burned in the process was unBaptized, you know, Destruction being easier than Creation and all that.

[dangermom]

[QUOTE=TWDuke]
I see a logical disconnect between the first and third sentences.
[/QUOTE]
My point was that if God is that capricious, we’re all in trouble regardless. However, I don’t think that He is–we believe in a God of order and reason. Therefore the question of proper authority is important to us.

Guin, yes indeed I have participated in doing proxy baptisms. They’re done in temples, mostly by teenagers 12 and up–that’s the only thing they can do and they’re restricted to the baptistry part of the temple. So it’s been quite some time–13 years or so–since I did any. These days I’m helping my daughter to prepare for her own baptism this summer when she turns 8.

Thanks for the explanation, Sarahfeena. I have to admit that I find it completely puzzling, but OK. For us, the question of proper authority would trump anything else. Well, ignorance fought.

[tomndebb]

[QUOTE=dangermom]
Wow, this I did not understand at all. It never occurred to me. (And I don’t get how the RCC could always have accepted Protestant baptisms–weren’t they killing each other over religion for a while there? There were wars and screaming and name-calling and excommunications and some burnings–so I don’t get that.)
[/quote]
The killing was pretty much all over topics that occurred after baptism, but Catholics and Protestants did not generally claim the other was not Christian; they simply got mad over the “fact” that the other guys got Christianity wrong. (The was some feuding over infant baptism, but that had to do with the actions of the adults long after baptism. There are various groups who do not recognize the baptism of other groups, but declining to recognize another group’s baptism is generally rooted in actual theology regarding the rite or the Trinity, not in apostolic succession.)

[QUOTE=dangermom]
Let me see if I can get this straight. For Mormons, all ordinances are connected to the priesthood. We accept all seven sacraments, as Catholics do: baptism, eucharist, reconciliation, confirmation, marriage, holy orders, anointing of the sick. All of these must be performed by someone holding the priesthood, which has been passed down by the laying on of hands from someone else who already has the priesthood, which can be traced directly to Peter and Jesus Christ. (You get a record stating the chain of succession.) It simply never occurred to me that any of these, in RCC practice, could be done by people who aren’t priests. So if anyone can do a valid baptism, can anyone bless the eucharist? What is it that only priests can do? What makes the difference–why would some sacraments be performed by anyone, but not others?
[/QUOTE]
In RCC theology:
The church is one with Jesus as the Body of Christ. All members, thus, share in some manner, in the priesthood of Jesus addressed in the letter to the Hebrews. However, within the church there are levels of competence for the exercise of the priesthood. Those levels are (in ascending order of authority), the laity, deacons, priests, and bishops. (All the other various titles are tied to specific jobs or aspects of the institutional organization. Archbishops, metropolitans, popes, subdeacons, monsignors, etc. are all postions (either wielding authority or merely honorary) within the institution of the church that have no theological association with the sacraments.)
From the RCC perspective (rooted in early church history), the bishop is the primary minister of all reserved sacraments and the priest is only the person delegated to carry the bishop’s authority to the communities to whom it is not possible for the bishop to attend, daily. The deacon is selected to provide additional service which the priest cannot provide.

The ministers of the sacraments are:
Baptism: the priest, but with the provision that due to its unique nature as the rite of initiation, it may be administered by any competent human of good will.
Reconciliation (Confession): reserved to priests and bishops.
Eucharist: reserved to priests and bishops.
Confirmation: the bishop, who has the authority to delegate that role to the priest–generally exercised when adults are being admitted to the church at the Easter Vigil where Baptism and Confirmation are administered together.
Matrimony: the man and woman who are expressing their vows are the ministers. Deacons, priests, and bishops preside over the ritual as witnesses for the church, but the ministers are the couple marrying.
Holy Orders: the bishop, who may not delegate it to anyone else.
Annointing of the sick: reserved to priests and bishops.

Note that, following the concept that the bishop is the primary minister, the priest has no authority to administer any of the sacraments in a location without the permission of the local bishop. Since the diaconate is intended as a service role, not a sacramental one, the deacon may perform baptisms (which any person of good will may do) or to witness marriages (where the sacrtament is administered to by the couple), but may not administer any of the reserved sacraments.

This “division of labor” is based on the theology behind each sacrament when viewed through the perspective of the theology of Orders and Priesthood, so the rules are unique for each sacrament (even when they give the same rule in shorthand descriptions).

[Captain_Amazing]

[QUOTE=dangermom]
Wow, this I did not understand at all. It never occurred to me. (And I don’t get how the RCC could always have accepted Protestant baptisms–weren’t they killing each other over religion for a while there? There were wars and screaming and name-calling and excommunications and some burnings–so I don’t get that.)
[/QUOTE]

Here’s the Vatican’s position (from 2001) on baptism, and why Mormon baptisms are invalid:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/theology/mormbap1.htm

[BrainGlutton]

[QUOTE=Cunctator]
From the Catholic point of view, baptism is a sacrament that can be conferred only once on any person. The concept of ‘rebaptism’ is nonsensical.
[/QUOTE]

Well, if it’s nonsensical then it’s harmless, isn’t it?

[dangermom]

within the church there are levels of competence for the exercise of the priesthood. Those levels are (in ascending order of authority), the laity, deacons, priests, and bishops. (All the other various titles are tied to specific jobs or aspects of the institutional organization. Archbishops, metropolitans, popes, subdeacons, monsignors, etc. are all postions (either wielding authority or merely honorary) within the institution of the church that have no theological association with the sacraments.)

Thanks, Tom. We actually have a somewhat similar structure, with graduating levels of priesthood and associated positions. Ours goes:

Deacon
Teacher
Priest

Elder
High Priest
Seventy
Apostle

One must be a priest to baptize and an elder to confirm (only an elder may perform baptisms for the dead, however). Bishop and sealer (marriages) are positions for a high priest with special authority attached. Blessings for the sick may be performed by an elder. The eucharist may be blessed by a priest and handed around by a deacon, since we don’t go up to the altar to receive it. Seventies and apostles are rather like archbishops and cardinals, I suppose, only they are also levels of priesthood. The prophet holds and exercises all priesthood keys, while apostles hold them but do not exercise all of them.

There is a whole giant list of exactly what each priesthood office does in the Doctrine and Covenants, but this is the very quick version. In addition, the 6th Article of Faith states: “We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangalists and so forth.” So this is also a restorationist principle.

For us, the question of proper priesthood authority handed down in succession is paramount. If one does not have this authority, which is God’s power given to man to act for Him, then ordinances have no effect. Corruption would lead to excommunication and a stripping of priesthood keys; you cannot be apostate and hold those keys at the same time. I’m sure everyone is tired of seeing me harp on about this by now, so I’ll stop.

[Sarahfeena]

[QUOTE=dangermom]
Your article says that the policy was always in place, but that it was often violated by members. AFAIK this is completely accurate; it all works on the honor system and there isn’t a way of checking to make sure that everyone only submits names of their own ancestors. The LDS Church keeps saying it, but sometimes people disobey the rules–often out of naive enthusiasm. However, your article also states many times that Jews will be on record as converted Mormons, which is not the case. Since 1995, when the whole thing broke and the policy was re-affirmed, there have been cases of people wrongfully submitting names and also times when it seems that non-Mormons have submitted Jewish names solely in order to raise a ruckus. The LDS Church deals with them as they come up.
I hope I understand it; I have said that I sympathize. (And IIRC last time this came up, you were kind enough to say that I seemed to get it.) As it happens, I was dating a Jewish guy in 1994-5, so I certainly got a first-hand look at the issue. FTR I agree that people should not submit unrelated Jewish names for baptism.
[/QUOTE]
Upon thinking about what you said here, I wanted to say that, Jewish or otherwise, I see a line so fine between those related to you and those not related to you that I’m not sure it’s worth making a distinction. Why do you have more right to perform proxy baptism of long-dead people, based on some tenuous connection that may go back generations, than the dead person has to be left alone? Or than their Jewish family has to claim them? Voyager could be more closely related to a given person than you are. (FTR, I don’t believe anyone “owns” the dead. I think that whatever a person was in life, that’s what they should remain in death, at least as far as the living are concerned.)

As Sarahfeena said, we absolutely don’t consider people to be converted by this process. Nor would we ever say so, or put names on record as Mormons.

I think, though, that there are records of proxy baptisms, are there not? I think the concern is that this could confuse future historians, and blur the records as to who was a Jew in life (or a Catholic, or whatever). I think the point is that these folks have a right not to be associated with any church that they had no part of when they were alive.

I understand what you’re both saying and I respect your feelings.

I appreciate that, but I think more to the point is, do you respect the feelings that these folks you are proxy baptizing might have had when they were alive? You say you are understanding, but would that stop you from proxy baptizing us, were you to find out that we were related to you? And what about all the people you proxy baptize who you never knew, and therefore can’t know how they would have felt?

[Icerigger]

The ability in Catholic doctrine for Baptism to be given by anyone so long as the proper form is used has had serious consequences in the real world. A Catholic girl once Baptized a Jewish boy named Edgardo Mortara, since she used the proper form it was considered a valid sacrament and the “Jewish” boy was now a Catholic. The Catholic authorities removed the boy from his parents and raised him as a Catholic because the parents being Jewish could not be permitted to raise their now Catholic son.

[CalMeacham]

This whole thing is absurd. The relevant points have all been made above, but, to re-iterate:
1.) Catholics don’t believe in LDS-style Baptism For the Dead, and don’t think it has any validity. Whether someone performs it or not is irrelevant, in their theology, to the fate of those people and their souls. In other words, it can’t do them any harm.

2.) The LDS folk believe that Baptism for the Dead is a charitable act that the intended souls are able to refuse if they desire.

3.) In other words, it;s not necessary for them to accept. In other words, neither the Catholics nor the Mormons think that anyone is going to be forced into a situation they’ll not want or will regret by this action. Yet the Catholics want to refuse the LDS church access to Catholic records, anyway.

4.) The LDS geneological archives are a wonderful reference tool and body of data that is open to all. I’ve used it myself to research family and for history. Baptismal records may, in some cases, be the only birth records available in some cases, but this would prevent their being copied and stored elsewhere, helping to preserve them.

5.) Since no conceivable harm can come from this (aside from possibly offering insult to people dead and otherwise unaffected by this), but the loss of record copying demonstrably Will cause inconvemience, the Catholic Church’s unwillingness to share records strikes me as petty.

[Sarahfeena]

[QUOTE=Icerigger]
The ability in Catholic doctrine for Baptism to be given by anyone so long as the proper form is used has had serious consequences in the real world. A Catholic girl once Baptized a Jewish boy named Edgardo Mortara, since she used the proper form it was considered a valid sacrament and the “Jewish” boy was now a Catholic. The Catholic authorities removed the boy from his parents and raised him as a Catholic because the parents being Jewish could not be permitted to raise their now Catholic son.
[/QUOTE]
Where did this happen? This is a good example of why religious and governmental authorities are best separated.

[Icerigger]

In 1858.

Mortara case

[Sarahfeena]

[QUOTE=Icerigger]
In 1858.

Mortara case

[/QUOTE]
I was actually asking where, but thanks for the link…it answered both questions!

[Revenant_Threshold]

I used to have a big problem with this, but now i’m not. I took it as a sign that whoever in question assumed they knew better than me, but hey, to be annoyed at that would mean assuming I know better than them, which is just as bad. If anything, it’s kinda nice that someone would think to give me another chance.

I suppose my only real problem now is that it assumes that the knowledge from after death would lead people to change their minds. If it does, i’m pretty sure a better system might be to give them that knowledge beforehand, rather than after. I doubt i’m related to any Mormons, after all, so I suspect my one chance is during this life and not after it.

[Jodi]

[QUOTE=CalMeacham]
This whole thing is absurd. The relevant points have all been made above, but, to re-iterate:
1.) Catholics don’t believe in LDS-style Baptism For the Dead, and don’t think it has any validity. Whether someone performs it or not is irrelevant, in their theology, to the fate of those people and their souls. In other words, it can’t do them any harm.
[/quote]

As a Protestant, I deny the validity of LDS baptism as well, but that doesn’t mean I want to see them performing one for me after I die. I am a knowing and intentional Protestant. I have been baptized. I reject the LDS doctrine. It is offensive to me to subject someone – anyone – to a religious rite in a religion that is not their own and without their consent. To me, there’s very little difference between what they do and sneaking the neighbor’s Muslim baby over to the Christian church to covertly baptize him. The fact that there is no objective “harm” to it is beside the point; the act itself is disrespectful and offensive.

2.) The LDS folk believe that Baptism for the Dead is a charitable act that the intended souls are able to refuse if they desire.

To force your “charity” upon people who do not want it is insulting. And the intended souls cannot refuse the baptism; though they may refuse its effects, the rite itself, the sacrament, cannot be refused. If that were true, they’d ask the dead for permission before performing the rite.

3.) In other words, it;s not necessary for them to accept. In other words, neither the Catholics nor the Mormons think that anyone is going to be forced into a situation they’ll not want or will regret by this action. Yet the Catholics want to refuse the LDS church access to Catholic records, anyway.

This is irrelevant to the offense of the rite itself, which is to purport to submit a person to a Christian sacrament even though that person would never in a million years have allowed the rite to be done, had he or she the power to object or to stop it.

It’s not a big deal to people who don’t think it’s a big deal. But it is a very big deal to some of us, and not just the Jews who naturally reject all Christian rites. To say that you will baptize people who lived and died in their chosen faith because their faith was the wrong one and their baptism was not effective – it is profoundly insulting. Would you allow the LDS to involunarily baptize the living? Why would we expect them to respect the choices of the living, but not respect those choices after the person has died?

4.) The LDS geneological archives are a wonderful reference tool and body of data that is open to all. I’ve used it myself to research family and for history. Baptismal records may, in some cases, be the only birth records available in some cases, but this would prevent their being copied and stored elsewhere, helping to preserve them.

Some people of other faiths feel strongly enough about the offensiveness of this particular practice that they would certainly deprive an otherwise disinterested public of “a wonderful research tool” if that was the only way to halt the practice. If that makes it harder for you to research your great-grandpa, too bad IMO.

5.) Since no conceivable harm can come from this (aside from possibly offering insult to people dead and otherwise unaffected by this), but the loss of record copying demonstrably Will cause inconvemience, the Catholic Church’s unwillingness to share records strikes me as petty.

It strikes you as petty because to you it’s not a big deal. To those of us for whom it is a big deal, it’s not petty. The conceivable harm IS in fact offering insult to people who are dead – and to their living descendants who would not make this choice on their behalf if they were asked, which they are not. Again, maybe disrepecting the dead is not a big deal to you, but for others, it certainly is.