Fr Matthew Hood
Photo: CNS 
The case of the mistaken baptism is a reminder of the Sacraments’ centrality writes Ruadhán Jones
It’s not often that an apparently obscure verdict on a question of Catholic doctrine has especially dramatic effects. When the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) announced that baptisms where the deacon or priest said “we” instead of “I” are now considered invalid, you couldn’t be faulted if it passed you by.
But for one priest, and for those he ministered to, it had far-reaching consequences. Fr Matthew Hood of the Archdiocese of Detroit thought he was a priest – it turned out he wasn’t even a baptised Catholic.
Ordained, so he thought, in 2017, Fr Hood had been carrying out his priestly responsibilities for three years. This included typical duties like celebrating Mass, hearing confessions, as well as officiating at Communions, Marriages and Baptisms.
But last month, the CDF released their judgement regarding unorthodox baptismal formulas used by some priests and deacons. These formulas changed the “I baptise you in the name Father…” to “We baptise you…” in an attempt to emphasise community participation.
On August 6, the CDF ruled that any baptisms conducted using the second formula are invalid and those baptised using this formula are considered not to have received the sacrament.
When Fr Hood read this release, he remembered a video he’d watched of his own ceremony. The deacon had said, “we baptise you…”. His baptism wasn’t valid and, consequently, neither was his ordination. After contacting his archdiocese, it was confirmed that Fr Hood would have to be baptised again.
And so he was. In quick order, he was baptised, confirmed and received the Eucharist. He then made a retreat, was ordained a deacon and, on August 17, three years after his first attempt, finally became a priest.
It didn’t end there either. In a guide explaining the unusual situation, the Archdiocese of Detroit advised those whose marriages had been consecrated by Fr Hood to contact their parishes. While it seems likely most marriages will not be affected, the diocese is taking no chances.
Furthermore, the archdiocese added that while those who made confession to Fr Hood “did not walk away without some measure of grace and forgiveness from God,” the absolutions were no longer valid.
“If you recall any grave (mortal) sins that you would have confessed to Father Hood before he was validly ordained and you have not yet been to a subsequent confession,” the guide continues, “you must bring them to your next confession explaining to any priest what has happened.
“If you cannot remember if you confessed any grave sins, you should bring that fact to your next confession as well. A subsequent absolution will include those sins and will give you peace of mind.”
Fortunately, in one sense, Fr Hood’s case is likely to be an isolated one. The Church presumes that a sacrament is valid unless there is some proof to the contrary. As such, Fr Hood would have been considered baptised if not for the video evidence. In another sense, it can make the situation seem more obscure – wasn’t this simply an example of legalistic nit-picking?
No, it wasn’t. In fact it highlights the central importance the Church places on the sacramental form, and why it does so. While the issues seem to have emerged as a result of the CDF’s release – and in part it did – the issue would not have come up had pastors not tampered with the liturgy.
The CDF released its ruling in response to questions regarding the validity of “community participation” baptisms. Pastors who changed “I” to “we” intended “to avoid the idea of the concentration of a sacred power in the priest to the detriment of the parents and the community”, the Vatican said in its release.
What those pastors failed to recognise is that when a minister administers the sacrament of baptism, “it is really Christ Himself who baptizes”. When a priest or minister celebrates a sacrament, the words and actions “make it possible to recognise with absolute clarity the gesture of Christ in the ritual action of the Church”, the Vatican said.
It is for this reason, the CDF ruled, that the Church itself cannot subordinate the sacraments to the actions of the Church. Why would you want to obscure the actions of Christ?
Furthermore, “when celebrating a Sacrament, the Church in fact functions as the Body that acts inseparably from its Head,” the Vatican noted. You can imagine how meaningful the actions of a body would be without its head – aimless and disjointed. “It is therefore understandable that in the course of the centuries the Church has safeguarded the form of the celebration of the Sacraments,” the Vatican said.
The case of Fr Hood and the mistaken baptism is a reminder of the centrality of the sacraments and their importance. They preserve objectively the actions of Christ in the world and should be treated with due care.
