CT Blue

I have mentioned before that I have an advanced degree in theology from Our Lady of Sorrows Grammar School, but it’s been a while since I passed on the fruits of the knowledge I acquired during those eight years of diligent study. This article (behind a paywall), from Free Inquiry Magazine, which I read in the bathroom while answering a call of nature, impels me to pound my keyboard yet again to explain the ways of god to men.

First, the woefully sad story with which the article begins:

It seems that Father Matthew Hood, associate pastor of St. Lawrence Parish in Utica, Michigan, watched a video of his 1990 baptism and was thunderstruck to discover that Deacon Mark Springer, the officiating clergyman, had used improper wording while performing this sacrament. Hood’s baptism had therefore been (gasp of horror) invalid!

As the article goes on to explain, that means that not only was “Father” Hood not a Catholic, he wasn’t a priest either, because only Catholics can be priests.

Totally logical so far, right?

But it gets even more logical. As we all know, sex is a sin unless you are married, and you’re not really married unless you are married by a priest, which means most people sin every time they have sex, but for most of them it doesn’t really matter because they’re committing so many other mortal sins (not being Catholic, and all) that the sex sins are just one more brick in the wall.

But, spare a tear for the actual Catholics who thought they were married by Mr. Hood (we can’t call him Father Hood, after all) but actually weren’t, because he wasn’t really a priest. They all went off on their honeymoons thinking they could have all the sinless sex they wanted, but in fact they were committing mortal sins without number and stamping their tickets to hell. And this is just one small example of the virtual pandemic of sin resulting from Deacon Springer’s fatal error.

Now, I am going to digress here, and note that in criminal law there is a doctrine that absolves one of a crime if the alleged criminal lacked the mens rea to commit the crime. That is, for many crimes, a person cannot be guilty of a crime unless he or she intended to commit a crime. Apparenlty, according to both Hood and the Church, God doesn’t see things that way.

So, as all my classmates from Our Lady of Sorrows could tell you, Hood has, despite his lack of mens rea, caused innumerable people to commit mortal sins, despite their lack of mens rea. For instance, it’s a mortal sin to take communion unless your soul is sin free, and the only way to get your soul sin free is to go to confession and get your sins wiped off your soul. But only a priest can say the magic words with efficacy, so all those people who walked out of Hood’s confessional believing their souls were clean still had dirty souls and further dirtied them by eating Jesus the next time they went to Mass! And spare a tear for the dying sinners who called Hood to their deathbeds to give them extreme unction, which would have given them a ticket to heaven, no matter the number of sins on their souls, had it been validly given. Imagine their surprise when Saint Peter informed them that they were going to Hell on a technicality!

The article notes that the church, which is taking all this seriously, is trying to do what it can for the unfortunates it can identify who have unknowingly led lives of sin as a result of Hood’s acts, but how many will remain blissfully unaware that they are not, in fact, baptized or married, or that their souls were not wiped clean that time they confessed to “Father” Hood? By the way, Hood himself should have no problem. All he has to do is confess all of his mens rea free wrongdoing and he’s off the hook. He has to get baptized first, of course. You have to do these things in order. Come to think of it, he doesn’t even have to confess, because the baptism alone cleans his soul completely.

Now you may wonder, what did Deacon Springer do wrong when he screwed up Hood’s baptism. Prepare to be shocked:

And why was Hood’s 1990 baptism invalid? Springer had changed a single word in the formula that priests are required to utter when administering this sacrament. Instead of “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” Springer said, “We baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Yes, changing the pronoun from first-person singular to first-person plural gummed up the whole works.

Personally, I’m amazed that God didn’t express his displeasure by striking Springer down with thunder and lightning. Some people might say that the pronoun you use shouldn’t make a difference, unless, of course, your talking about some transgender person assuming the right to choose their own pronoun. Some might even ask whether we can be sure the approved language in its English version is an accurate translation of whatever language in which God first set it forth, which of course opens up the possibility that the English speaking world is totally bereft of honest to God Catholics. But what do those questioning people know?

Now, there’s another principal in the law, that looks with disfavor upon actions that are arbitrary and capricious and some people (see the previous paragraph) might argue that God himself is pretty arbitrary and capricious when it comes to consigning people to hell and damnation. But, as god tells us in Randy Newman’s Faust:

My ways are mysterious! …Sometimes even to myself!

But, as this blog reminds us every Easter, we must always look on the bright side, For every person who has led a good life who ends up in hell, there’s an inveterate sinner who gets into heaven due to the same sort of technicality that sent the good guy to hell. It all evens out! Who can ask for anything more?