"By heresies oppressed"

It's hard to know whether or not to take it seriously, because the whole business is serious--and isn't. No one believes the priest's foul-up matters for eternity, but it was broad enough in theological scope to lead to his resignation from the parish.

You heard the story? A priest in Phoenix hung up his robes for a mistake he made in the administration of baptism in his church. It seems--my word! who researches such things?--he misspoke with significant theological implications. When he baptized babies, he'd say "We baptize you" and not "I baptize you."

What!--you say? Listen.

The fundamental error was that in saying "we baptize you" he was deferring the power that was his as a holy priest "in the line of Melchizedek," or God's own ordained hands and fingers. He was, in other words, neglecting or rejecting or simply not asserting an absolutely fundamental Roman Catholic doctrine, in a sacrament priests can practice. Only they represent the Almighty. 

However, Fr. Andres Arango, his superiors maintained, "intended no harm," nor had he dastardly determined to sabotage the sacrament for the babies he'd baptized. He'd just used the wrong pronoun. 

So he resigned. 

Whoa. 

It's kind of a mess, but what it does is help us all to think theologically by asking questions very few ask, questions like "what is baptism"? Is it just some arid ritual the church created, something we video, like a kid's first swing in T-Ball? Was it so bad for Arango to say "we"? Isn't that, in great part, true? "We" baptize our children. Those who don't believe in Christ don't, right? We do. Therefore, we wasn't, like, all wrong.

And besides, it seems decidedly Roman Catholic to say "I," if the meaning is that the priest alone stands "in the order of Melchizedek." Since the Reformation, those of us on who side with the Protestants have maintained what we call "the priesthood of all believers." Where people construct a level theological playing field, "we" would, in fact, be right. "We're doing it"--all of us--in God's name, right?

But Fr. Arango resigned. That was a little extreme. Besides, his confessing what he did created an opportunity for the rest of us, for once, to think seriously about a question that's thoroughly theological. No masks, no needles--so nobody really cares what Donald Trump thinks. You can't "nationalize" the question, and, as far as I know, no one in Phoenix is running for town council on a Arango platform. It's refreshing actually, just one of those how-many-angels-can-dance-on-a-needle questions. 

Nor is it a hair-on-fire thing like gay marriage. In fact, you can't help but enjoy the whole discussion because it's not burning anything down. Nobody's fighting. Nobody's starting new denominations. Nobody's calling themselves or others "the liberal [or ultra conservative] Arangoes." Nobody's accusing anybody else of not reading the Bible. Nobody villainizes the other side.

It's substantial and even nice, a question about the nature of sacrament, the nature of baptism--and who we are in the process. 

So by all means talk amongst yourselves. Just don't mention LBGTQ and whatever other letters people stack on that unpronounceable construction. Just let the question be what it is. No one gets mad. 

Isn't that wonderful? We really ought to make Father Arango a saint.