How stupid are things getting in this time of coronavirus, you ask?
Here are a couple of examples.
How NOT to do things.
Concelebration.
This is wrong is so many ways.
Not that this nitwit doesn’t have a paten with host, or a chalice with wine. He is “concelebrating” online.
This looks very much like simulation of a sacrament, specifically, simulating Mass. Canon 1379 threatens “a just penalty” for the simulation of a sacrament.
That said, to incur a censure a person has to commit a sin, know that something is wrong to do and do it anyway. I suspect that this fellow is so clueless that he would simply be ignored. But there it is: a photo on Fakebook. Therefore something has to be said about it.
A priest cannot celebrated sacraments at a distance over the phone or zoom or another means. A priest cannot consecrated the Eucharist or absolve your sins via skype.
No. Just… no.
Next, this greeted me on my phone last night and I see that it is out in the wild now on Twitter.
This could only be possible in a world infested with liberals… pic.twitter.com/MCbrtneEVe
— James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) May 24, 2020
Let’s leave aside the optics of pointing any sort of gun at a baby.
I want to think that this is just a joke. They are posing. They are trying to be funny. Whether or not this is funny could be left to the beholder.
Is this a photo of a real attempt to baptize?
Let’s assume that it is for a moment.
Assuming that this dopey priest said the proper form of baptism while using the squirt gun with water and that the water reached the skin of the head of the child, would this be a valid baptism?
Let’s dissect.
For baptism to be valid, water must be used. It could be dirty water, but it has to be water.
The “proximate matter” of baptism is ablution with water. This means physical contact of the water and the person’s body. The ablution symbolizes outwardly what happens in the soul.
There are different ways to accomplish this ablution. There is dipping or immersion (immersio), pouring (infusio) or sprinkling (aspersio).
However, in all cases, the water must flow on the head. If the water does not touch the head, at least the hair of the head, the baptism is doubtfully valid. In the case of a person trapped in a wrecked car and all that can be reached is a leg, pouring the water over the leg would be doubtful and, if possible should be administered conditionally later.
To be sure about validity of the baptism, the water should be poured in enough quantity and on a place of the head where there is exposed skin, at the same time as the Trinitarian form is recited: “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” In my opinion it is best to say the form in Latin, although approved translations are allowed.
The form is absolutely essential. In no circumstance can it be altered. These words must be pronounced simultaneously with action of making the water contact the head. Not before. Not after.
A good practice is to pour the water thrice, with the Names of the Persons of the Trinity, or continuously as the whole form is pronounced, directly on bare skin of the head. That way there is no question about validity.
In the case of baptism by immersion, there does not have to be a three-fold immersion.
But… delivery of the water, from a distance, with a squirt gun (while
saying the form)?
In the case of a normal, non-stupid, baptism, the priest will often use a baptismal shell rather than his hand to pout the water. It is a good practice. The point is, an instrument can be used to deliver the water to the skin of the head of the one being baptize.
In the case of a normal, non-stupid, and valid baptism, the ablution and the form must be performed at the same time. You can’t pour and, afterward say the form. One can say, “I baptize you in the name of the Father, [slight pause POUR] and of the Son [slight pause POUR], and of the Holy Spirit [slight pause POUR].” In that slight pause the water is delivered to the head. How long can the pause be? I don’t know, but there is no good reason to wait. So, if the water from the squirt gun (aspersio) arrives at the head of the infant and the water runs on the skin, and if the idiot priest is saying the proper form, even in intervals between the squirts from the water gun, then it seems to me that this could be valid.
However, if someone came to me, and described this scene, I would suggest a conditional baptism. And I would suggest the whole rite as in the Rituale Romanum.
Why?
There is no good reason to FOOL AROUND WITH SACRAMENTS!
Coronavirus is probably making people stupid. For sure it is revealing the stupid that’s already there.
