Contents
- Home
- News
- Archbishops warn of symbolic charge of blasphemy law
- Ration your flights, airport protester tells churchgoers
- Juvenile justice is ‘barbaric’ and worst in Europe
- Political action is a danger area for religious charities
- More than 100 die in Gaza offensive
- Fears grow for kidnapped archbishop
- Church’s burglar is a regular
- CHP does new deal
- CARE reports rise in ‘couple penalty’
- Muslims in poll seek harmony
- Paisley plans to ‘bow out’ in May
- Kunonga elevates associates
- Broadcast times for The Passion
- ‘Feminist’ baptisms are not valid, says the Vatican
- Viewing
- Bishop Forster: freedom-of-speech clause not necessary
- Childhood over by 11, say parents
- Stranded
- News in Brief
- Church could join state to aid countryside, says advocate
- Bishop of Coventry named
- Historic churches get £15m
- Cambridge science don ticks off the teen rebels
- A century of chapel
- Church challenges school-bias claims
- Warm welcome
- Christians call on Arroyo to resign
- Peaceful start
- CMS backs Dawani in Holy Land row
- Serious support
- Question of the week
- Comment
- Letters
- Real Life
- Features
- Faith
- Humour and crossword
- Pastimes
- Books
- Arts
- Media
- Gazette
 back to News |
 previous story
|
next story 
|
‘Feminist’ baptisms are not valid, says the Vatican
by Pat Ashworth
 Authoritative ruling: Pope Benedict XV1 PA | THE USE of feminist language in the baptism liturgy renders the baptism invalid, the Vatican has ruled, in answer to questions tabled to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF). The two formulae in question were: “I baptise you in the name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sanctifier,” and: “. . . of the Creator . . . the Liberator . . . and the Sustainer”. The CDF further confirmed that anyone whose baptism had been conferred with these formulae would have to be baptised again using the Trinitarian language. The explanatory note to the responses, which the Pope released for publication this week, said: “Baptism conferred in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit obeys Jesus’s command as it appears at the end of the Gospel of St Matthew. The baptism formula must be an adequate expression of Trinitarian faith: approximate formulae are unacceptable.” |
| The notes, from Monsignor Antonio Mitalles, Professor of Dogmatic Theology at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross, said that the variants undermined faith in the Trinity. He explained: “Variations to the baptismal formula using non-biblical designations of the Divine Persons as considered in this reply, arise from so-called feminist theology. They are an attempt to avoid using the words Father and Son, which are held to be chauvinistic, substituting them with other names.”
Dr Tina Beattie, Reader in Christian Studies at Roehampton University, and a specialist in theologies and theories of gender, said that she is generally sympathetic to the need for more inclusive and creative liturgical language. But she felt that, in this case, it had gone too far and lost sight of something vital.
“The [Trinitarian] language refers to quite specific wording to be used in the baptismal service, and it has theological significance, which I think makes the use of different terminology problematic in this particular case,” she said on Tuesday.
“I’d be surprised if it was widely used in Roman Catholic baptisms in this country, but it may be more of an issue in the United States, where I think there’s a more widespread liberalism in all the churches. I think it’s not an exclusively feminist terminology — it’s probably used by different groups who want to express a more holistic, environmentally friendly, and inclusive liturgical approach.”
The explanatory notes emphasise that those who have had invalid baptisms “must 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’”.
Before his election as Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was Prefect of the CDF. In 2004, he wrote “On the Collaboration of Men and Women in the Church and the World”, which blamed feminism for the breakdown of the family and the advent of civil partnerships.
See Giles Fraser |
