Daily Archives: February 2, 2010

Who’s rewriting history in this story?

Son of Trypho pointed me to a rather bizarre story on ABC Radio’s AM program this morning concerning the fallout of Fr Peter Kennedy’s use of invalid baptismal formulae at St Mary’s in South Brisbane: “Ruthless Church accused of re-writing history”. People there are not happy that their children need to be rebaptised and – get this – they are blaming the Catholic Church for this, NOT Kennedy himself! In fact, Kennedy’s argument is that

the Catholic Church is trying to re-write history. He says the baptisms it is now refusing to recognise were carried out under its watch, and before Rome objected to the practices at St Mary’s.

I think someone is missing the point here. It is well known that someone should have done something about Kennedy’s improper baptismal formula earlier than they did, and from rather closer to home than the Vatican. But whether or not the hue and cry had yet been raised, what invalidates baptism is not the Church’s objection to the use of invalid formulae, but the invalid formulae themselves. An invalid baptism is an invalid baptism, whether or not the authorities have taken action to put a stop to such practices yet.

And what about the formula of baptism. You be the judge. Here is what Kennedy has to say for himself. (Just note that the words I have put in bold here are missing from the transcript report on the ABC website, but can be heard on the audio recording on the same page. The words in Italics are only in the transcript and didn’t make it to air.)

We always used the formula I baptise you in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, the God of love who is creator, redeemer and sustainer of life. [T]here were a handful of baptisms where the parents objected to just having anything about Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. They didn’t want that rather exclusive formula. So the vast majority of children baptised at St Mary’s have been baptised validly in their theology. I mean you can only talk about God in metaphor. If you are going to describe the Trinity, it is Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. You can also describe the Trinity as creator, redeemer, sustainer of life.”

So. Just who is re-writing history here?

20 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

“Atheism macht Frei”

Well big news in Melbourne is that the “Global Atheism Convention” has “sold out”. Apparently they have 2500 coming for the March 12-14 event. Let’s see… World Parliament of Religions got 5,500… so does that mean that the Religions are still winning? OR that Atheists are catching up?

In this story by Barney in today’s edition of The Age, convention organiser and Atheist Foundation of Australia president David Nicholls said

”We think this is a turning point for secularism in Australia, and it will be looked at by the rest of the world. We will see it happening more through the free planet, and our aim is to make the whole planet free.”

The “free planet”? “Our aim is to make the whole planet free”? Mr Nicholls doesn’t believe in God, but he seems to believe in extra-terrestial life, and apparently the Earth has been taken prisoner…?

Or does he mean that the Atheist aim is to make the whole planet free FROM something? Let me guess… Religion? OR People who BELIEVE in a Religion? Is that what he means? The “virus” or “plague” of religious believers? If so… (tell me if I am going wrong here, won’t you) …then this convention sounds like the Nuremberg Rally on steriods.

6 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized