We're wet here In the northeast; the rivers are overflowing, the ground sodden, the sky teeming. One's normally dry condition is impossible to maintain. All of which reminded me of last Sunday at the cathedral, where there were two baptisms.
Now, I have to preface the following remarks by saying that I have a problem with baptism in general. As a way of welcoming a brand new person, infant baptism is an understandable ritual in the life of a religious community. I just have serious problems with the way all religions mark one's "inside" or "outside" status through some ceremony and taking of vows which may be totally sincere and reasonable - even (if we really listen to the promises we're making) binding the person to a way of life that is inclusive rather than exclusive of others - but which serve much more often to divide those who share the ritual anointing from everyone else. And I have really serious problems with the idea that baptism "saves" one person as opposed to another who hasn't been baptized. I think that is absolutely ridiculous.
Be that as it may, baptisms tend to be a happy thing at the cathedral, partly because the woman priest who usually performs them
just loves babies, and is incapable of making the event into a formal or
repetitive ritual. On this particular day – la fête des mères, or Mother’s Day
– the two families, both quite extended, filled the first two or three pews on
each side of the sanctuary, and two white-robed babies were passed from arm to
arm of various smiling relatives. As it turned out, it was quite a
Montréal-esque occasion as well. When the priest went to the pulpit for the
sermon, she began in French: one of the couples, whom she had married, was
francophone, and the other anglophone, so the baptismal liturgy went back and
forth between English and French in typical Montréal style. One of the
couples was also of mixed race, a fact that most people in the city don’t seem
to even notice.
(The New Testament lesson for the morning was the story from the Book of Acts in which the disciple Philip comes upon a eunuch
reading the Hebrew scriptures in his parked chariot; the eunuch invites Philip
to climb up, and asks him to explain what he’s reading. The two ride along, discussing, and
when the chariot passes by some water, the eunuch suggests that they stop so
that Philip can baptize him. Afterwards, the eunuch goes “on his way rejoicing,” but Philip
disappears, and finds himself deposited in a faraway town, where he goes on
preaching and teaching.)
After the presentation of the two tiny candidates for
baptism, the service moved from the main sanctuary of the cathedral to the
eastern transept (better known as the baptistry) where the font stands in the
middle of the floor. Members of the congregation joined the families and clergy
around the font, as water was poured from a great height, with much flourish,
into the font. The first baby, a little dark-haired girl of a few months,
looked around quizzically and never uttered a peep as water was tipped from a
scallop shell onto her head. The second baby started whimpering before her
mother ever handed her to the priest, and the crescendo built into a
microphone-shattering wail that had us all laughing.
Is baptism like marriage now in Québec – an outmoded
ritual, considered unnecessary and old-fashioned – or do most people still
bring their children into the church at least that once, in a nod to the faith many
people say they still have but don’t necessarily practice? I wonder. I had
never seen any of the members of those two families in church before, but they
certainly knew what to do, and most of them got up later and went to receive
communion, looking quite at home.