17 Comments

  1. Steve S

    According to the Catholic church, baptism with an acceptable form and the right intent does not have be administered by a Catholic to be valid. Part of the explanation of their opinion that LDS baptism is invalid is that the reference to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost in our baptism does not mean what it superficially seems to mean, because our understanding of the trinity is too different. They also consider that our intent in performing baptism is wrong because we we don’t think of baptism as including the remission of original sin, we don’t think that baptism was first instituted when Christ lived on the earth, and we don’t think that baptism is always permanent. Instead, we think that former members of the LDS church need to be rebaptized.

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

  2. Ferreira

    Is the concern for the welfare of dead Catholics or living ones who may be exposed to Biblical doctrine not currently practiced in the Catholic church? To whom is the practice “detrimental”?

  3. cadams

    Maybe they think our baptisms for the dead may have some kind of effect beyond the grave for some of their Catholic dead. A holy war for souls beyond the veil.

  4. Latter-day Guy

    Having corresponded with a few Catholics (of the priestly persuasion) on this subject, I think that I better understand their position on this:

    1. This injunction will basically only apply to the wholesale copying/microfiche-making of parish records in bulk. Bishop Wester of SLC has already explained that relatives researching their own ancestors will still be allowed access to/copies of pertinent records.

    2. To allow the copying of parish records in a broad way (when the parish is aware these records will be used in proxy temple ordinances) would constitute (in the Catholic view) material participation in what they believe a false rite. This, when done with understanding, constitutes a mortal sin.

    3. The records are quite simply the property of the Catholic Church and are theirs to do with as they please, in spite of the many indignant and accusatory comments that are floating around online (present company excluded, thankfully).

    I have read many LDS responses on this issue and there have not been many that added to the level of understanding on this issue. In fact, I feel more confident in my suspicion that we Mormons are less than experienced at being ecumenical. After all, if we’re right, we’re right; so it’s my way or the highway baby. (This is at a grassroots level; the Church representatives from HQ do a much better job at this.)

    I actually think that this move may yield positive results. The Church, as far as I am aware, has generally counseled that genealogical research ought to deal with one’s own ancestors. I think that this will prevent overzealous, well-meaning souls from doing things like sealing Pope Pius XII to “Mrs. Pope Pius XII” (which has actually happened). Due to the sheer volume of names, it is a difficult system to police, so this new Catholic ruling, while inconvenient, may very well help keep our own members anxiously engaged in the right directions.

  5. Ferreira

    Great post, Latter-day Guy. I understand the accessory-to-a-sin feeling. We would probably feel the same way under different circumstances.

    A Jewish friend told me that she didn’t want her deceased family to be considered Mormon because we performed a temple baptism. From my perspective, I want to say, “If you believe there is no authority on the LDS church, then this should be a non-issue for you; only a waste of time and water for Mormons.” That is looking at the issue from my perspective in which only a priesthood called as Aaron may act for God, and everything else is without effect. Where others don’t have that same view of God’s order (or is it Order?) of priesthood, a rite that they consider erronous may still be troubling. For example, I find it interesting that the Catholic church recognizes baptisms performed in other Christian churches–with exceptions.

    The feeling of kinship and family ties that draws some to withold records from practices they feel are apostate does shed an interesting light on the value of family ties. What did Malichi say about Elijah?

  6. Morguerat

    Re Ferreira:

    The tact I use when discussing it is that it DOES NOT make them Mormon in and of itself. All it ever does is provide the dead the chance to accept the baptism for themselves. If in their current state they decide not to accept it, then for all intents and purposes, no baptism was performed, except in the ledgers of the church acknowledging that it doesn’t need to be done again for that person.

  7. As wrong as I feel they are in doing so, I agree that it is their records to do with as they please. If a person doesn’t get baptized by proxy b/c of the withholding of records…they won’t be denied blessings. That’s beyond our control.

  8. Jason

    why do you say that “valid baptisms are permanent”, in reference to LDS baptism, when the LDS Church practices rebaptism, usually for those that are excommunicated?

  9. Jason

    Thank you for the quick response. I guess I just don’t see how this statement: “We both believe that valid baptisms are permanent, and don’t need to be repeated. So on this we agree.” agrees with “Because for those that are excommunicated, it is as if they were never baptized.”. For Catholics, valid baptism is permanent in that no matter what one does, including excommunication, they still have the valid baptism, as it is not erased (baptism causes a real, permanent change in the soul). So I’m just a little confused as to how a LDS baptism is considered permanent, if it can be erased (as in, excommunication causes the person to be as “if they were never baptized”.

  10. Jason

    Thank you again for explaining your beliefs. I guess it does stem from our differing views on baptism and excommunication. I think that for me, the LDS view on the “permanence” of baptism is more of a conditional permanence, where the effects of the baptism are permanent as long as one follows the LDS faith and commandments. The Catholic viewpoint is not that one is “permanently” given a “spot” in Heaven, but that the effects of baptism are permanent, and can never be taken away, no matter what one does, since that real change in the soul can never be undone. So, if one is excommunicated and would like to come back to full communion with the Catholic Church, they would repent, and make a profession of Faith, with no need to be baptized anew. This is related to the lay phrase “once a Catholic, always a Catholic”.

    Thank you again for your views, and I’ll continue to read your very interesting website.

  11. Bryan Hansen

    I think it is interesting that the prophet’s response is to announce intentions to build a Temple in Rome. From what I see on the internet, that Temple is moving towards groundbreaking.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.