Pope Francis’ ‘transsexual’ baptisms document is even more radical than it seems

[Stone]

“What could be clearer? We must henceforth obey and be faithful to the Conciliar Church, no longer to the Catholic Church. Right there is our whole problem: we are suspended a divinis by the Conciliar Church, the Conciliar Church, to which we have no wish to belong! That Conciliar Church is a schismatic church because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship… The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or the faithful adhere to this new church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Reflections on his suspension a divinis, July 29, 1976)

†  †  †

Pope Francis’ ‘transsexual’ baptisms document is even more radical than it seems
The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith’s approach to baptism departs from apostolic practice, passing over aspects of the Gospel that require change and sacrifice and leaving catechumens in error and sin.



Pope Francis/Cardinal Victor Fernández
Vatican News/Mazur/cbcew.org.uk

Fr. Timothy V. Vaverek [Priest of the Diocese of Austin since 1985]
Jan 4, 2024
(LifeSiteNews) — In November, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) formally responded to the question, “Can a transsexual be baptized?” Most commentary has focused on its implications for pastoral care in those circumstances. However, the Response has actually presented a new approach for administering the sacraments to anyone. That’s very troubling because the dicastery’s approach departs from apostolic practice and claims to explain Pope Francis’ vision. 

The DDF affirmed that “a transsexual [sic]… can receive baptism, under the same conditions as other believers.” For an adult, those conditions (not enumerated in the Response) include repentance and acceptance of the faith and life of the Gospel. Let’s consider how those arise and affect the sacrament.

Beginning with the Apostles, the Church has elicited repentance and faith by proclaiming Christ and His Gospel. A process of pre-baptismal formation was developed to prepare would-be converts (“catechumens”) for sharing Jesus’ life. This often required significant changes of worldview and lifestyle. Sometimes it led to persecution.

The extent and gravity of those changes weren’t hidden from catechumens or treated as unendurable burdens. On the contrary, catechumens joyfully embraced them as the yoke and cross of Christ. This empowered them to live and die united to Jesus in the face of struggles and failures. 

Despite formation, a catechumen might be baptized without knowing that certain of his actions and beliefs are contrary to the Gospel or while deliberately refusing to abandon them. Are such baptisms valid?

The Church teaches that the reception of baptism is invalid only when someone opposes it (this refusal might be hidden). That person remains unbaptized because God doesn’t impose his gifts.

If a catechumen is innocently in error, then his baptism is valid, he’s configured to Christ by receiving the baptismal “character,” and the Trinity comes to dwell in him, initiating the life of grace. However, his beliefs and behavior remain distorted until he recognizes and lives the truth of the Gospel.

If a catechumen deliberately refuses a particular Gospel teaching or repentance for a specific sin, the sacrament is nevertheless valid and he receives the baptismal character, but God doesn’t dwell in him. The life of grace can’t begin until he stops refusing because God won’t force him to accept the changes needed to share Christ’s life.   

Striving to avoid such harmful outcomes, the Church insists that catechumens manifest their desire for baptism, receive sufficient instruction in faith and morals, be tested in the Christian life, and be admonished to repent (see canon 865).

The DDF doesn’t discuss all those canonical requirements or how one might particularly assist an individual who self-identifies as “transsexual” prepare for baptism. It merely states the general obligation of the Church, before and after baptism, to “remind [them] to fully live all the implications of baptism.”

The Response mentions in passing the possibility of doubts about a catechumen’s situation and considers the deliberate refusal to repent of sin (without addressing the refusal of Gospel teachings). It notes that even apart from grace, sacramental character “remains forever in the Christian as a positive disposition for grace [and] as a promise and guarantee of divine protection” (Catechism 1121).

The DDF also states that baptismal character is a cause “disposing one to accept grace” (misquoting St. Thomas Aquinas) and that God can initiate an “irrevocable covenant” with sinners. Apparently this is meant to foster the expectation that those who knowingly rejected the Gospel at their baptism will later accept it.

Most notably, the Response claims its reflections are the key to understanding Pope Francis’ statement that “the doors of the Sacraments should not be closed for any reason, [especially] Baptism.” (Recall that the Pope has also said Holy Communion and absolution shouldn’t be withheld.)

To summarize: the DDF proposes that baptism (or any other sacrament) shouldn’t be withheld from those desiring it, even if the minister knows or reasonably believes that the person deliberately rejects elements of the faith and life of the Gospel. Seemingly, God will resolve the situation later.

There are grave problems with this.

First, baptismal character and God’s covenant are irrevocable but don’t guarantee entrance into Heaven. To expect otherwise would be sinfully presumptuous because God won’t force fidelity on anyone.     

Second, Aquinas didn’t describe character as a “cause disposing one to accept grace” but as a “cause disposing to grace.” For Thomas, this “disposition” is a configuration to Christ that fits (we might say “orients”) a person to life and worship as a member of His Body. It’s not a psychological “disposition” or motivation leading one to accept grace: “character is not imprinted for preparing man’s will [to act well]” (I Sent IV, 4, 3, 2, 1).

Third, conferring baptism based on desire alone departs from apostolic practice by ignoring the need for repentance and belief. That desire must lead to a well-formed affirmation that the catechumen accepts the Gospel proclaimed by the Church and intends to live by it.

Fourth, those who culpably reject repentance or Jesus’ teachings commit sacrilege and presumption by accepting baptism (or any other sacrament), as do the clergy who intentionally or negligently enable them. The Church must help them avoid these sins.

Catechumens, including self-identified “transsexuals,” have a divine right to authentic Christian formation prior to baptism. This corresponds to the duty Christ imposed on the Church to teach His disciples “to observe all that I have commanded.” Therefore, priests and catechists must compassionately question and confront indications of a catechumen’s incorrect beliefs and behavior, even those they hold dearest.

Relying on desire alone or adopting a “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach that passes over aspects of the Gospel that require change and sacrifice leaves catechumens in error and sin, ensnared by the ways of the world. That’s a false “wisdom” that empties the Cross of its liberating and life-changing power (I Cor 1:7).

Those who deliberately reject elements of Christian faith and life must be accompanied patiently but baptized only when they know and desire to accept the faith and life of the Gospel. That’s the all-inclusive, apostolic approach—and the only one that works.