Wednesday, 14 October 2020

Who cares about an Invalid Catholic Baptism? Catholic Baptism is invalid any way: Invalidly baptized Oklahoma priest baptized and ‘re-ordained’

 Fr. Zachary Boazman, left, after the baptism of a baby, right. Credit: Archdiocese of Oklahoma City

Oops! The Priest Fumbled the Baby’s “Baptism”: Now What?  

Oops the Priest Fumbled the Babys Baptism, PDF format

Rome Says: “Baptism Necessary for Salvation”

  The Roman Catholic institution teaches that what it calls “baptism” is the first of its seven sacraments, and that by it a person is regenerated (born again) and thus becomes a Christian.  Here are the words: “Baptism… is necessary for salvation…. By it people are freed from sins, are born again as children of God and, made like to Christ by an indelible character, are incorporated into the Church.  It is validly conferred only by a washing in real water with the proper form of words.”[1]  This is utterly false, unbiblical doctrine.

But What If the “Baptism” is Invalid?

  What happens to a Roman Catholic if his “baptism” was performed incorrectly, and he didn’t know?

  This suddenly surfaced as a huge issue in August 2020, because some priests had apparently been using a modified (and false) baptismal formula.  It meant that for perhaps thousands, or tens of thousands, of people who thought they had been regenerated and made “Christians” by their Popish “baptism”, they were now in the (for them) terrifying position of not being validly “baptized”, and therefore not being  “Christians”!

  The correct “baptismal formula” (according to Rome) is when the priest says, “I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”.  And indeed this would be correct, if Romish “baptism” was correct – but it isn’t.  Anyway, it came to the notice of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – which used to be called the Inquisition – that certain priests might have been using a somewhat modified formula – something which sought to express the “communitarian significance” and participation of the family and others present at a child’s “baptism”.  In these warm and fuzzy times, where no one wants to be left out and everyone is being told their participation is important, and when even Roman Catholics often balk at the idea of such spiritual power in the hands of one man and not in their own hands as well, it appears that some trendy priests have been altering the formula and have been saying, as they “baptized” the child, “We baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”  We instead of I. 

  This doubtless made the family and friends present all feel nice and warm and fuzzy inside, but alas for the little baby, this inclusiveness invalidated its “baptism”, because according to Rome, it is the person of Christ himself who is acting through the priest, not through the mixed bag of assorted family and friends hovering around the baptismal font.  And Romish “baptism” is only valid if the correct formula is pronounced.

  So then: what about the spiritual state of the poor baby who was “baptized” with the incorrect words, “We baptize you…”?  Well, Rome declares that anyone for whom the sacrament was celebrated with this formula must be baptized in forma absoluta, meaning that baby (or adult for that matter) must be considered as not having been validly “baptized”!  The Inquisition stated that modifying “the form of the celebration of a sacrament does not constitute simply a liturgical abuse, like the transgression of a positive norm, but a vulnus [wound] inflicted upon the ecclesial communion and the identifiability of Christ’s action, and in the most grave cases rendering invalid the sacrament itself.”  “Therefore, in the specific case of the sacrament of baptism, not only does the minister not have the authority to modify the sacramental formula to his own liking, but neither can he even declare that he is acting on behalf of the parents, godparents, relatives or friends, nor in the name of the assembly gathered for the celebration…. When the minister says, ‘I baptize you’, he does not speak as a functionary who carries out a role entrusted to him, but he enacts ministerially the sign-presence of Christ.”[2] 

  But think what this means for that person who believes that without valid Popish “baptism” he is not born again, he is not a Christian, and therefore will in fact be eternally damned if he does not take immediate steps to rectify the problem.  And such steps mean he must immediately seek to be validly “baptized”.  After all, if he dies unbaptized…!

  Thus the eternal salvation of a soul, according to Rome, is held in the hands of the one (usually a priest) doing the “baptizing”!  If he was tired at the time and fumbled the wording; if he was perhaps drunk and fumbled the wording; if he just had a lapse of memory and fumbled the wording – the one he supposedly “baptized” but actually didn’t, will (according to the teaching of his false “church”) close his eyes in death, perhaps many decades later after living the life of a sincere Roman Catholic, and find himself in hell.  Not because of his own sins, but because his trusted priest got the wording of the formula wrong, and said “We” instead of “I”.

  And over a billion people on this planet call this monstrous system the true Christian Church!

From Roman Catholic Priest to… Not Even a Real Roman Catholic!

  Here is what happened to one Roman Catholic priest who found out that he had not been “validly baptized” as a baby.  Think about it: this man believed he was validly baptized, grew up as a Roman Catholic, partook of such sacraments of Rome as the mass and confession, and then was even ordained as a Roman Catholic priest!  

  This priest, Matthew Hood, of the Romish archdiocese of Detroit, Michigan, believed all his life that he had been “born again” when he was “baptized” as a baby.  But, prompted by the Inquisition’s notice, he reviewed the video of his “baptism”, and learned that the deacon had said, “We baptize you…”  It came as a huge shock to him.  “In one fell swoop, Hood went from being a Catholic priest to being… well, not technically a Catholic at all.”[3]

  He acted swiftly to remedy the situation.  “In short order, he was baptized, confirmed, and received the Eucharist.  After making a retreat, he was ordained a deacon, and then ordained a priest Aug. 17.”

  Hood, devoted Roman Catholic that he is, doubtless is extremely relieved he didn’t die before his “valid” baptism was performed!  But the thing is, the ramifications did not end with him.  Not by a long shot.  The “baptisms” he had performed remained valid in the eyes of Rome, because the Romish “sacrament of baptism” can be validly performed by anyone using the correct wording and having the correct intention.  One does not have to be a priest.  However, as he was not truly a priest in the eyes of Rome because he himself had not been validly “baptized”, and in fact he was not truly even a valid Roman Catholic, this meant that all the confirmations he performed as a priest, all the confessions he heard in the confessional box, and all the dying people to whom he had administered the last sacrament, were not valid either!

  It caused a panic, to say the least.  The archdiocese of Detroit encouraged all those who had received the Romish sacraments from either priest Hood or from the deacon who had “baptized” him as a baby all those years before, to contact the archdiocese.  The ripple effects were immense.

  And it wasn’t long before another man, who had all along believed himself to be a validly baptized Roman Catholic and who had been ordained as a priest of Rome, learned that his “baptism” was invalid and had to “re-receive” all of his sacraments as well!  This was Zachary Boazman, a priest of the archdiocese of Oklahoma City.[4]

  Now multiply these (so far) two instances by probably tens of thousands of others.  And then think back: in all the long centuries in which the Roman Catholic institution has been “baptizing” babies, how many millions must have been invalid according to Rome, for one reason or the other?  Which means that all those poor, deceived millions, who trusted their “church” and their priest to do right by them for the sake of their eternal souls (as they believed), were never (according to Rome) “born again”, never truly Roman Catholic, and were therefore eternally lost!

“Don’t Worry – the Majority Will be Fine!”

  So what should the poor, frightened Roman Catholic do if he either suspects, or knows certainly, that his “baptism” was not valid according to Rome?  “The Vatican has issued no guidance to the faithful on how to determine whether their baptism is valid, whether those in doubt should abstain from partaking in the sacraments reserved for the baptised, or how to seek remedy.”[5]  Oh, that’s comforting!  The person who thought he was a Roman Catholic for years, and now finds out he is not because his own “church” fumbled his “baptism”, receives no guidance from that selfsame “church”!  Yet for a faithful Roman Catholic (at least, for the one who thought he was before his “baptism” was found to be invalid) it’s his eternal salvation that’s at stake! 

  Here was the answer provided by Thomas Petri, a Roman Catholic priest and theologian at the Dominican House of Studies in Washington, D.C.  He said it was not unreasonable for anyone who had a video of their “baptism” to review the tape – just in case.  “If I had a video, I would be reviewing my own baptism, just to be sure,” Petri said.[6]  All fine and well for those with a video – but millions upon millions worldwide would have no such convenient record to hand.  And what about the multiplied millions in all the centuries before modern technology enabled some, at least, to record such events?  Here comes Petri’s best effort at providing comfort to fearful Roman Catholics:

 “Having a home video is one thing, but trying to investigate through witnesses [i.e. those who had been present at the “baptism”] is a whole other thing that will just take over your life… in the vast majority of cases, the vast majority are going to be fine, and valid.  I suspect we’re talking about a very small percentage [that are invalid].”

  Oh, that’s really re-assuring, if you’re a Roman Catholic!  “The vast majority are going to be fine”?  The vast majority is not everyone!  The vast majority still leaves multiplied millions in the “minority” group!  “A very small percentage” is still unknown millions, given the numerical size of the Roman Cathodic religion!  And as for saying, “I suspect we’re talking about a very small percentage”, that’s hardly comforting if you as a Roman Catholic might be a part of that “small percentage” but you don’t even know if you are or not!  

  In fact, priest Matthew Hood (or rather, priest-then-not-priest-then-priest Matthew Hood) said pretty much the same thing: “I don’t think people need to all of the sudden doubt the validity of their own baptism.  By and large, baptisms are celebrated correctly in the Church.”  By and large?  

  Then he added: “If someone knows for certain that the wrong words were used, then they can act.  But if you don’t know, or there’s no evidence, you don’t need to be worried about it.”  Really?  A Roman Catholic doesn’t need to be worried?  According to the teaching of his “church”, his eternal salvation is at stake – but he doesn’t need to be worried?  Without valid Popish “baptism” Rome says he is not born again, he is not a child of God, and therefore he must be lost – and he shouldn’t be worried?  How can a Roman Catholic just shrug it off? 

  Let’s imagine this scenario for a moment: someone who was present at his “baptism” (perhaps his “godparent”) comes up to him and says, “You know, after reading what the Vatican said about invalid baptisms, I recall that at your baptism the priest used the words which the Vatican says are invalid.  At least I think he did.  I’m not positive of course, I’m not 100% sure, but I’m pretty sure.”  A seed of doubt has now been planted in that man’s mind, and it’s going to grow and grow.  If he has any concern for his soul at all, it’s going to eat away at him for the rest of his life!  He would think to himself, “My church says that without valid baptism I am not born again, I am not freed from my sins, I am not made like to Christ, I am not incorporated into the one true church.  But this priest, Matthew Hood, says I mustn’t worry about it.  He was worried about it for himself!  He was devastated by the news that his baptism was invalid.  And he went through the entire rigmarole of becoming a Roman Catholic, and then a priest, all over again.  At least he had a video he could go and check.  I don’t have a video of my baptism, but my sponsor at my baptism – or what I’ve always thought was my baptism – now tells me he’s not absolutely sure I was validly baptized.  What happens then when I die and God says to me, ‘You were not validly baptized; you were never truly a Roman Catholic.  You are lost!’” Can anyone even imagine how that doubt is going to trouble him for the rest of his life?

Romish “Baptism” Essential to Salvation – Until It’s Not

  But although Rome provides no guidance on how to determine whether one’s “baptism” was valid or not, it does seek to allay the fears of those who suspect all was not well with their “baptisms” – and fails miserably to be of any comfort at all.  Priest Petri reminded Roman Catholics of what the “Church” of Rome teaches: “God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.”[7]  Petri’s comment on this was, “So I think we have to believe that God can still give graces, and we know that he does give graces apart from the sacraments.  So I think only in cases where there’s proof that it is invalid should we worry.”[8]  Not very reassuring at all, when this priest-theologian uses the words, “I think”, twice.  The eternal salvation of a Roman Catholic is thus supposedly based on what this man (and others like him) think

  Clarifying further, he said that discovering one’s “baptism” was invalid would not mean one was unable to receive graces from God, but that any graces received would have been given by God in an “extraordinary” way, not via the “ordinary” channel of “baptism”.  Oh, it just gets better and better, doesn’t it?  So which “extraordinary” ways could these graces come to one?  Well, Petri mentioned the “baptism of desire” for those about to die; i.e. they desire the sacrament even though they cannot receive it, and their desire is accepted by God.  But this hardly answers the case of the poor Roman Catholic who was invalidly “baptized” as a baby, and doesn’t even know it!  And Petri had no other comfort to offer.  That was it – the “baptism of desire”.  It doesn’t even fit the case of a person “invalidly baptized”.

  Opening his mouth just to change feet, Petri added that the case of priest Matthew Hood was a good example of how God’s grace can operate outside the sacraments: “Somehow, by the grace of God he discerned a vocation to the priesthood, even though he wasn’t baptized,” he said.  But wait a minute: if he was not validly “baptized” he was not even born again, not even a child of God (according to Rome)!  How then could someone still dead in his sins “discern” a vocation to the priesthood? 

  Then came the explanation of yet another priest-theologian, Mark Morozowich, dean of the school of theology and religious studies at The Catholic University of America.  He said the words of the sacrament of “baptism” do matter; however, “we always have to remember that God does not desire the death of a person, but desires that they live.  And if a person has lived their entire life believing in God, and believing that they were baptized, God will bring them unto Himself.  Even though this person may have been denied the specific graces of baptism, it did not mean that he did not lead a life that was blessed by God.”[9]  The problem, however, for the faithful Romanist is this: there is a huge difference between having the desire to be “baptized” but not having the opportunity, and believing one’s “baptism” was valid.  Just believing it does not make it so.  A man can believe he is a “Christian” because he shakes the hand of the priest (or even of the pastor) at the door after the service, but believing it doesn’t make it so.  For a faithful Papist, who has been told all his life that “baptism” is absolutely essential to his salvation, this kind of nebulous teaching would hardly fill him with confidence, now would it?

  What a tangled web of lies and deceit Rome weaves, as it stumbles from one shocking, diabolical doctrine to another.  On the one hand, it claims “baptism” is essential to salvation; on the other, one can be saved without it.  On the one hand, an invalidly “baptized” person isn’t even a Roman Catholic; on the other, he can still “discern” a vocation to the priesthood.  On the one hand, Roman Catholics are desperately scrambling to check if they can be certain they were validly “baptized”, because all their lives they’ve been taught that this sacrament is necessary to salvation; on the other, priests are telling them not to panic, “the vast majority will be fine”.  Cold comfort to someone who believes their eternal destiny is at stake here!

The Already Muddy Waters of Romish “Baptism” Become as Thick as Sludge…

As if all this was not bad enough, it gets a whole lot worse…

  As explained above, the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – the Inquisition – concluded that the use of the formula, “We baptize”, instead of, “I baptize”, invalidates any Romish “baptism”.  However, another Vatican congregation had previously taught the very opposite!

  An under-secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments had published a letter in the 2003 issue of “Roman Replies and CLSA Advisory Opinions” which addressed this very matter of the formula, “We baptize you”.  This was the conclusion:

 “Employing the first person plural, rather than the singular… does not cast into doubt the validity of the Baptism conferred.  That is, if the three divine Persons are named specifically as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the use of the first person plural does not invalidate the conferral of the Sacrament.”[10]

  So which Vatican congregation is right and which is wrong?  The Congregation for Divine Worship stated that using the formula, “We baptize you”, does not invalidate the sacrament of “baptism”; but the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated that it does!  Which one are Roman Catholics to heed?

  What utter confusion!  A Roman Catholic may have been concerned about the validity of his “baptism” years ago, only to be comforted by the assurance of the Congregation for Divine Worship that he had nothing to be concerned about.  Years go by, and then once again he is told that his “baptism” is invalid, this time by the powerful Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith! 

  These poor deceived people are trusting in fallible men to lead them to heaven!  Jesus said, “Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it” (Matt. 7:13,14).  It is a very broad way indeed when the false “Church” of Rome says two absolutely contradictory things on a matter as vitally important as this one, as far as Roman Catholics are concerned!  So broad, in fact, that if one strays to the left one will be told his “baptism” is valid even if the baptizer got the words wrong, but if he strays to the right he will be told his “baptism” is invalid!

The Biblical Truth about Baptism and Salvation
 Dear Roman Catholic friend, you have been lied to.  Turn from this stinking garbage pile of man-made teaching, and trust in the living God alone, whose absolute truth is laid out in His own Word, the Bible, divinely inspired and without error!  Baptism does not make anyone a child of God.  It does not bring about the new birth.  Your eternal destiny does not depend on the application of some water to your head and the “right” words which some man mumbled over you at the time!  When Simon the sorcerer was baptized by Philip, the mode of baptism was absolutely correct (as shown by Acts 8:30-39), and the words he pronounced were correct as well (Matt. 28:19); yet Simon was not regenerated!  He had “believed”, but only intellectually (Acts 8:13); he was still in a perishing state, his heart was not right in God’s sight, he had not yet truly repented of his sins, but was still in the gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity (vv.20-23).

  Baptism should follow regeneration and conversion, but is not the cause of these spiritual blessings.  One who is a true Christian should submit to baptism out of love for and obedience to the Lord, but it does not save anyone.

  What then did Jesus mean when He said, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (Jn. 3:5)?  He did not mean physical water.  Over and over in the Bible water is used as a symbol of spiritual realities.  Water symbolises being made clean (Jn. 15:3).  What then does the water symbolise in Jn. 3:5?  It can refer to the Word of God, which is the means, the instrument which the Holy Spirit uses in regeneration, as it is written in Jas. 1:18: “Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth”; and in 1 Pet. 1:23: “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.”  And it can refer to the grace of God, figuratively, as in Ezek. 36:25: “Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.”  Mere physical water cannot cleanse a person from the filthiness of inward sin; only the grace of God can do that. 

  Take heed to the words of Paul the apostle: “I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius” (1 Cor. 1:14); “For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel” (v.17); “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God” (v.18).  And again these words of his: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth” (Rom. 1:16).  Just think about these verses.  If baptism was essential to salvation; if by baptism a person is born again, made a child of God, and incorporated into the Church; then why would Paul have written that he actually thanked God he had baptized so few?  He should instead have mourned that he had not baptized more!  But he could write thus, because he knew that Christ had not sent him to baptize, but to preach the Gospel.  And the reason?  It is the Gospel – the preaching of the glad tidings of salvation by the crucified, risen Saviour – which is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes!  Faith in Christ is that whereby one is saved from his sins.  “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast” (Eph. 2:8,9).

  No man can save you from your sins.  You can’t save yourself.  A priest can’t do it for you.  Some drops of water on your head won’t do it.  The right verbal formula, like some magic incantation, doesn’t do it either.  If you would be saved from your sins, go to Christ.  He alone is the Saviour, He alone can save.  This is why He came into the world: “to save sinners” (1 Tim. 1:15).  His name is JESUS (meaning Saviour); “for he shall save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21).  Repent of your sins, and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ with all your heart, trusting in none but Him to save you.  He has said, “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me: and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out” (Jn. 6:37).

September 2020

Shaun Willcock is a minister, author and researcher.  He runs Bible Based Ministries.  For other articles (which may be downloaded and printed), as well as details about his books, audio messages, pamphlets, etc., please visit the Bible Based Ministries website; or write to the address below.  If you would like to be on Bible Based Ministries’ email list, to receive all future articles, please send your details


[1]. The Code of Canon Law, Canon 849.  The Canon Law Society Trust, 1983.  Collins Liturgical Publications, London.

[2]. The Southern Cross, August 12 to 18, 2020.  “Vatican: Your baptism may be invalid.”

[3]. Catholic News Agency, August 24, 2020.  “My baptism was valid…right?”

[4]. Catholic News Agency, September 16, 2020.  “Invalidly baptized Oklahoma priest baptized and ‘re-ordained.’”

[5]The Southern Cross, August 12 to 18, 2020. 

[6]. Catholic News Agency, August 24, 2020. 

[7]. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, chapter one, “The necessity of Baptism”.  Pauline Publications – Africa, Nairobi, Kenya, 1994.

[8]. Catholic News Agency, August 24, 2020. 

[9]Catholic News Agency, August 24, 2020. 

[10]Catholic News Agency, September 16, 2020. 


Bible Based Ministries

This article may be copied for free distribution if it is copied in full

Contending for the Faith Ministries
695 Kentons Run Ave
Henderson, NV 89052
United States of America


 Fr. Zachary Boazman, left, after the baptism of a baby, right. Credit: Archdiocese of Oklahoma City

Fr. Zachary Boazman, left, after the baptism of a baby, right. Credit: Archdiocese of Oklahoma City

Invalidly baptized Oklahoma priest baptized and ‘re-ordained’ 



In the second known instance in the United States, a man who believed himself to be a validly baptized Catholic and ordained priest had to “re-receive” all of his sacraments, including ordination, after discovering that his baptism was invalid.

Fr. Zachary Boazman, a priest of the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City, thought he was validly ordained in 2019. But in August, the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a doctrinal note, reminding Catholics that baptisms are not valid if the minister of the baptism changed the words, or formula, of the baptism from “I baptize you” to “We baptize you.”

Boazman, who was baptized in another diocese in 1992, reviewed a videotape of his baptism after the announcement from the Vatican and discovered that the deacon ministering his baptism had used the invalid “We baptize you.”

A Sept. 14 letter sent to priests, deacons and staff of the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City, and shared with CNA, said Boazman was “immediately contacted Archbishop Paul Coakley to explain the situation and seek guidance” after his discovery.

Because Boazman’s baptism had not been valid, the subsequent sacraments he received - reconciliation, Holy Communion, confirmation, ordination - were therefore also not valid. His invalid baptism also invalidated many of the sacraments he offered before his valid ordination, including Masses, confessions, and some marriages. A key exception to that are the baptisms ministered by Boazman, as baptisms can be validly performed by anyone using the correct formula (wording) and the right intention.

Within days of Boazman’s discovery, he was validly baptized Catholic and validly ordained as a priest.

“To rectify the issue, Father Boazman was baptized, confirmed and received the Eucharist on Sept. 8 at Saint Francis of Assisi Catholic Church in Oklahoma City,” the archdiocese stated in the letter. “He was ordained by Archbishop Coakley a transitional deacon and a priest on Sept. 12 also at Saint Francis of Assisi Catholic Church,” the letter added.

“This has been a heart-breaking experience for Father Zak, but one that he handled with grace and patience,” Coakley said in the letter.

“I am certain this past week, as unsettling as it was, will further strengthen Father Zak’s resolve to serve God’s people and develop an even deeper appreciation for the gift of the priesthood.”

Boazman could not be reached for comment on September 16, as he was on retreat.

The Archdiocese of Oklahoma City noted that Coakley sanated, or validated, the marriages witnessed by Boazman prior to his valid ordination last week. Boazman had not celebrated any confirmations prior to his valid ordination.

The Archdiocese of Oklahoma City encouraged anyone with concerns about sacraments they have received from Boazman prior to his valid ordination to call the archdiocese.

Boazman is not the only priest to have recently discovered that he was not even a Catholic, let alone a priest.

In August, soon after the Vatican announcement, Fr. Matthew Hood of the Archdiocese of Detroit remembered from the tape of his baptism that the ministering deacon had said “We baptize you...”

Hood contacted the Archdiocese of Detroit and after he validly baptized and receiving valid sacraments of penance, Holy Communion, confirmation, and diaconal ordination, he was validly ordained a priest on Aug. 17. 

Hood’s story raised concern among some Catholics about whether their own baptisms had been valid, and to what extent they should go to find out. The Catholic Church normally presumes a sacrament is valid, unless there is some proof to the contrary, such as the videos of Boazman’s and Hood’s baptisms.

While the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith concluded baptisms administered according to the “We baptize” formula are invalid, another Vatican congregation had previously given advice to the contrary.

A letter sent to a diocese from an undersecretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, and published in the 2003 issue of “Roman Replies and CLSA Advisory Opinions” addressed the “We baptize you” formula.

“Employing the first person plural, rather than the singular...does not cast into doubt the validity of the Baptism conferred. That is, if the three divine Persons are named specifically as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the use of the first person plural does not invalidate the conferral of the Sacrament.”

“The liceity of such a celebration, however, is quite another matter.”

“It is the responsibility of the celebrant of Baptism to confer the Sacrament in a way that is licit as well as valid, and any infraction such as the one you describe should be brought immediately to the attention of the local Bishop.”

But the August letter of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, which said such baptisms are always invalid, has set some U.S. bishops assessing what to do about baptisms previously thought illicit but actually invalid.

The Archdiocese of Detroit issued some pastoral guidance for anyone with concerns, that addressed many questions surrounding the issue.

“...theology is a science that studies what God has told us and, when it comes to sacraments, there must not only be the right intention by the minister but also the right ‘matter’ (material) and the right ‘form’ (words/gestures – such as pouring or immersion in water by the one saying the words),” the Archdiocese of Detroit stated on its website.

“As far as God ‘taking care of it,’ we can trust that God will assist those whose hearts are open to Him. However, we can have a much greater degree of confidence by strengthening ourselves with the sacraments He has entrusted to us,” the archdiocese added.

“Indeed, all the other sacraments increase and fortify sanctifying grace in the soul. One can see then, that sanctifying grace is a treasure of treasures and we should do everything we can to protect the integrity of the sacraments and stay very close to them – receiving them as often as possible.”



Babylon United States of Sodom and Gomorrah : CNN journalist Richard Quest marries longtime male partner: When the wise become fools in God’s sight

Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire(Jude 1:7).

 CNN's Richard Quest proposes to his gay lover

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet(Romans 7:21-27).


‘My Great Honor!’ Trump Tweets in Sharing Video Calling Him the ‘Most Pro-Gay President in American History’

Surprise: Former Editor of CCM Magazine Comes Out Gay, Announces Divorce

Baptist ‘Pastor’ Fired after Coming Out to Congregation as Transgender During Sermon

When Lucifer’s devils invade the Pulpit: A Tanzanian pastor has opened up a sex church in Kenya: In this church, they drink beer, have an hour of s..x with the person sitting next, exchange their wives and husbands for sexual desires  


CNN journalist Richard Quest marries longtime male partner 

By Chad Kitundu October 14th, 2020


CNN International’s top business journalist and anchor Richard Quest has finally tied the knot with his longtime male partner Chris Pepesterny.

The renowned news anchor took to social media to express his joy at having said “I Do” to Chris, sharing a beautiful picture with his lover in which they are all smiles.

Quest captioned the post: “We said ‘I Do’ at the weekend. Happiest day of our lives.”

 CNN presenter Richard Quest gets engaged to gay lover ▷

In March, the two lovers were forced to postpone their wedding but promised to tie the knot before the end of the year.

“Today Chris and I were supposed to get married in London. Of course we had to postpone. Sad but necessary.  We will marry later in the year, with a bigger party. I wanted to acknowledge how we are all facing such difficult times, in so many different ways. This too shall pass,” he said then.

 CNN International anchor Richard Quest left husband Editorial Stock Photo -  Stock Image | Shutterstock

The two got engaged in May 2019, after his lover agreed to the journalist’s marriage proposal.

The New-York based Quest took to his Instagram page on Monday to break the news.

The post was accompanied by a photo of the journalist and with his lover smiling at the camera.

 Richard Quest: CNN business anchor finally gets married to male lover

Quest has never been shy to proclaim or speak about same-sex orientations, including during his short visit to the country in 2018.

“I am obviously going to be advancing an agenda that says there should be at least the decriminalization of same sexual activity. It is straight forward. I am not gonna mess around with that one. That is obviously my belief,” he told Capital FM in an interview in Nairobi in 2018.


Monday, 12 October 2020

Museveni renames self Tibuhaburwa : Museveni’s change of name doesn’t affect my request for his academic documents


Museveni renames self Tibuhaburwa 

Monday October 12 2020
 By Anthony Wesaka

President Museveni has sworn a declaration to rectify his names and have them written in proper order in accordance with the law on registration of names.

The new law,  Registration of Persons Regulations has placed many politicians and public leaders to rectify distortions in their name order as they risk losing nomination for 2021 elections.

Museveni joins hundreds of other Ugandans who are seeking to rearrange their names to align them with the law. 

On October 6, Museveni swore a deed poll that this newspaper has seen, where he explains that he was compelled to put his names in proper order because it has been written interchangeably on several occasions over the years.
A deed poll is a legal document used to prove change of a person’s name.

In the deed poll, Mr Museveni says he was born in September 1944 and named Yoweri Tibuhaburwa Kaguta.  However, his academic certificates bear the name Yoweri Tibuhaburwa Museveni.

“Since the completion of my education, the names Yoweri Museveni, Yoweri Tibuhaburwa Museveni, Yoweri Kaguta Museveni and Yoweri Tibuhaburwa Kaguta Museveni have been used interchangeably in reference to me,” Mr Museveni states in the sworn document.


The flag bearer of the ruling National Resistance Movement for 2021 elections, says from October 6 onwards, the proper legal order of his name is Yoweri Tibuhaburwa Kaguta Museveni.

“I formally and absolutely renounce and abandon the use of names Yoweri Museveni, Yoweri Tibuhaburwa Museveni, Yoweri Kaguta Museveni and assume and adopt in place of those names my full name Yoweri Tibuhaburwa Kaguta Museveni,” he states in his deed poll.

He continues: “For purposes of evidencing the assumption of the proper order of my full name, I hereby declare that I shall at all times from now in all records, deeds and instruments in writing and on all occasions that require the use of my full name, sign the name of Yoweri Tibuhaburwa Kaguta Museveni instead of the renounced names.”

Commissioning the deed poll
The said deed poll was sworn in through K&K law firm. Mr Kiryowa Kiwanuka, one of the managing partners at the law firm, yesterday confirmed he commissioned the deed poll.

President Museveni now joins a long list of more than 160 politicians such as Robert Kyagulanyi, aka Bobi Wine, Gen Henry Tumukunde and Mugisha Muntu of Alliance for National Transformation who have since sworn in their deed polls to rearrange their names in accordance with the Registration of Persons Regulations to avoid being rejected for nominations in the 2021 elections.

Mr Kyagulanyi who has been interchangeably using names of Kyagulanyi Ssentamu R, Kyagulanyi Robert Sentamu, Robert Ssentamu Kyagulanyi and Kyagulanyi Ssentamu Roberts, now wants the correct order of his name to be Kyagulanyi Ssentamu Robert.

Mr Muntu, who has been interchangeably writing his name as Mugisha Greggson and Mugisha Gregory Muntu Oyera, now wants to be known as Mugisha Muntu Gregg to match particulars on his academic certificates.

Former Security minister Gen Tumukunde on the other hand wants to add another name Kakurugu to his name to read Henry Tumukunde Kakurugu. He had previously been interchangeably using the name Tumukunde Henry BK, and Henry Brian Kakurugu.

The panic among politicians in having their names realign with their academic papers follows a recent announcement by the Electoral Commission that aspirants with different names other than those on their academic documents will not be nominated for the elections.

The EC announcement follows a 2017 court ruling in which Taban Amin’s victory as Kibanda North MP was annulled on account that he interchanged his names, which included Taban Amin Tampo Jegejege, Taban Amin Tampo as indicated in the national voters’ register and ID to Taban Idi Amin on the nomination form and academic certificates and Idi Taban Amin indicated in his passport.


 Lawyer Muwada Nkunyingi vows to sue EC over Museveni’s academic documents

 Muwada Nkunyingi

Muwada: Museveni’s change of name doesn’t affect my request for his academic documents  

October 9, 2020


National Unity Platform (NUP) member and city lawyer Muwada Nkunyingi has tasked the Electoral Commission to send him results of ‘Yoweri Kaguta Museveni’ and not those of ‘Yoweri Tibuhaburwa Kaguta Museveni’.

Previously known as Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, the president announced in a deed poll that has been accessed by this website that he has dropped the use of any other name and will now be known as Yoweri Tibuhaburwa Kaguta Museveni.


The deed poll reads: “I was born in September, 1944 and names Yoweri Tibuhaburwa Kaguta Museveni. My academic documents bear my name, Yoweri Tibuhaburwa Museveni and since completion of my education the names Yoweri Museveni, Yoweri Yoweri Tibuhaburwa Museveni, Yoweri Kaguta Museveni and Yoweri Tibuhaburwa Kaguta Museveni have been used interchangeably in reference to me,”

It adds: “I hereby declare that I shall at all times from now in all records, deeds and instruments in writing, and all occasions that require the use of my full name, sign the name of Yoweri Tibuhaburwa Kaguta Museveni instead of the renounced name.”

On Friday morning, Muwada told journalists at his home in Kampala the EC has declined to avail him with the President’s academic documents in August this year.

Muwada said that the name ‘Tibuhaburwa’ has never been heard of and neither has it ever appeared anywhere on the ballot paper and therefore he doesn’t expect academic documents with that name because his request came before the deed poll.

He said: “I have checked all results of the previous elections since the EC was established, no candidate has ever been announced with the name ‘Tibuhaburwa’ yet the president maintains that he was using it interchangeably.”

According to Muwada, the law in Uganda says that no one can change a name without a deed poll and if President Museveni presented academic documents in 2016 general elections, they should have included the name ‘Tibuhaburwa’ and the EC, in its declaring hım as president, should have announced him by that name.

“This change of name does not change our stand because our request came in earlier and we are determined to pursue this until the end,” Muwada said.

Muwada asked the EC chairman Justice Simon Byabakama to release Museveni’s academic documents like the the commission did when another lawyer asked for documents of candidate Robert Kyagulanyi Ssentamu.


Thursday, 8 October 2020

Helping US corporations and Neo-liberal slave states to primitively accumulate mineral resources in DR Congo: Uganda to build 223km road network inside DRC: Feeding your neighbour’s kids as your own kids starve to death is a very bogus idea

 Uganda, DRC to improve infrastructure to ease business



Fooling us about Uganda’s neutrality in the Congo Conflict!!! Militarizing the Congo to help USA and allies to rape Congo resources: DRC troops, civilians fleeing to Uganda after rebel clashes


 which other player is missing???? The USA of course

 which other player is missing???? The USA of course

CHRISTIANS IN AFRICA: AWAKE! America and the American Church Are Not Your Friends


Asad Ismi , The Western Heart of Darkness: Mineral-rich Congo ravaged by genocide and Western plunder


Asad Ismi , The Ravaging of Africa, Western neo-colonialism fuels wars, plundering of resources



Bishop Jean Marie Runiga, Becomes a spokes person for the M23: Using Confusion, misinformation and disinformation to Hide the Central role of USA, her allies and client states in the Conflict in the ‘Democratic’ republic of Congo(DRC)


When will President Obama weep for Congolese Children ??? Mr. President sorry about the death of innocent kids in the Connecticut shooting…but what that gun man did is exactly what US proxies are doing to innocent children in Congo….how I wish you will one day weep for Congolese black children who are your close relatives.

Tears of a poor Congolose child whose whole life has been rendered hell on earth
US President Barack Obama's tears while speaking about the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, during a press briefing at the White House in Washington. Photo: Reuters

Oh! God when will you avenge this: Congolese abandoned by international community


In this impressive book, Edward S. Herman and David Peterson examine the uses and abuses of the word “genocide.” They argue persuasively that the label is highly politicized and that in the United States it is used by the government, journalists, and academics to brand as evil those nations and political movements that in one way or another interfere with the imperial interests of U.S. capitalism. Thus the word “genocide” is seldom applied when the perpetrators are U.S. allies (or even the United States itself), while it is used almost indiscriminately when murders are committed or are alleged to have been committed by enemies of the United States and U.S. business interests. One set of rules applies to cases such as U.S. aggression in Vietnam, Israeli oppression of Palestinians, Indonesian slaughter of so-called communists and the people of East Timor, U.S. bombings in Serbia and Kosovo, the U.S. war of “liberation” in Iraq, and mass murders committed by U.S. allies in Rwanda and the Republic of Congo. Another set applies to cases such as Serbian aggression in Kosovo and Bosnia, killings carried out by U.S. enemies in Rwanda and Darfur, Saddam Hussein, any and all actions by Iran, and a host of others.


Uganda to build 223km road network inside DRC

The Ugandan cabinet has approved a move that will see government build 223km of road network inside the Democratic Republic of Congo.


The Ugandan cabinet has approved a move that will see government build 223km of road network inside the Democratic Republic of Congo.

The development was announced on Tuesday by the government spokesperson, Ofwono Opondo while addressing journalists about various cabinet decisions at the Uganda Media Centre in Kampala.


“Cabinet approved the construction and upgrading of the national road from Kasindi section at the border to Beni(80km) and the integration of the Beni-Butembo axis(54km) to the national road and the Bunagana(border) to Ruchuru- Goma road (89km) on grounds that the project will benefit the government and people of Uganda through economic interconnectivity,” Opondo said.

According to the government spokesperson, the move to construct the 223 kilometre road network will help improve mobility and ease business between the two neighbouring countries as well as improved people to people interconnectivity of the two countries.

“The road network would provide improved security in the eastern DRC and increased trade and investment,” Opondo said.

DRC is one of Uganda’s biggest trading partner with a number of the country’s exports ending up to Kinshasa.

Last year, President Museveni held bilateral talks with newly elected DRC President, Felix Tshisekedi at State House in Entebbe and among key issues discussed included trade, security and bilateral relations between the two neighbouring countries.

During the meeting, Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo signed agreements to work on key road networks connecting the two countries to ease business.

Museveni said the road network will ease movement of goods and other services between the two countries “so, when you produce, you supply goods, you supply services. But you also create jobs for the youth.”

The President added that the market factor is equally crucial noting that the Ugandan population of 42 million and that of the DRC of 80 million is not enough. He cited China as a country that has a guaranteed market of 1.3 billion people and yet Child is still struggling for markets in other countries.

“We need the market of all of Africa and there should be no taxes at the borders. What we need to concentrate on is the quality of production that can be done in the country where it is cheapest and there will be comparative advantages,” he said.

The latest development underscores the stable relations between Uganda and DR Congo which have been enjoyed over the last decades, albeit complicated by security tensions in the eastern Congo.



Museveni makes case for trade in Africa as Tshisekedi vows to turn conflict zone into economic hub

President Yoweri Museveni has urged African countries to promote trade as one of the strategies that will ensure the survival of the continent and the prosperity of the people. “Today, Africans must know that trade is a matter of survival. If you don’t trade, you will collapse because prosperity comes from trade,” Museveni said on … Continue reading 

MPs reject plan to spend Shs 200bn on DRC roads

A road in DRC. Photo: Unicef

A road in DRC. Photo: Unicef

The parliamentary Budget Committee has rejected, at least for now, a government plan to fund construction of roads in the Democratic Republic of Congo using Ugandan cash.

The MPs raised the objections during a meeting with the minister of state for Planning, David Bahati. The minister appeared before the committee on October 5 to defend a supplementary budget worth Shs 3.4 trillion. About Shs 200bn in the supplementary budget is earmarked as Uganda’s contribution to the construction of 223km of roads in the DRC following a bilateral agreement between Uganda and the DRC to implement strategic infrastructure projects.

This amount is Uganda’s 20% contribution to the roads project. The total project will cost is $334.5m; therefore, Uganda’s contribution amounts to $66.9m, which is approximately Shs 254bn. Bahati had appeared along with the minister of Works and Transport Gen Katumba Wamala.

The Dokolo district Woman MP Cecilia Ogwal was angry that government had decided to prioritize roads in the DRC over roads within Uganda that need urgent attention. She told Gen Wamala that despite the economic value of the roads in the DRC, all the outstanding urgent roads in Uganda need to be fixed before embarking on the regional infrastructural project.

Her view was supported by the West Budama North MP Richard Othieno who said the Works minister had abandoned his commitment to local roads and was instead seeking funds for roads in the DRC. Bahati insisted that regional interconnectivity projects also need to be prioritized since they promote trade, security and cooperation.

He said the project was a resolution of a bilateral agreement between the two presidents – Felix Tshisekedi of the DRC and Yoweri Museveni and a sign of warm relations between the countries. The committee chairperson Amos Lugoloobi accused Bahati of suppressing funds that had been approved for local roads in order to fund the project.

Lugoloobi said that Uganda’s district roads are not being funded and all the equipment is lying idle. Bahati refuted this allegation by proving that the Uganda National Roads Authority had received 25% of its funding amounting to Shs 600bn in the first quarter of the financial year and in the second quarter, the local interconnectivity roads are going to be funded with Shs 30bn.

Gen Katumba Wamala said he hoped the committee would consider the project as a game changer in terms of trade and security. He said he was handing over to the committee for consideration the draft inter-governmental agreement and the draft project development agreement which are yet to be signed pending approval of funds by parliament.


Uganda to help build roads inside Congo, citing trade goals

September 29, 2020 at 6:32 p.m. GMT+3

KAMPALA, Uganda — Uganda’s government said Tuesday it would help finance projects to surface over 200 kilometers (124 miles) of road inside neighboring Congo as part of plans to boost trade between the countries.

Uganda will contribute about 20% of the project value while the rest will be met by Congo’s government in an envisaged public-private partnership, Ugandan Works and Transport Minister Gen. Katumba Wamala told The Associated Press.

Such an arrangement is unheard of in a region where governments struggle to expand road networks within their borders. Despite its vast size and wealth of natural resources, Congo remains one of the poorest countries in the world. Eastern Congo is particularly plagued by rebel violence.

“There is always a first time for everything,” Wamala said. “This is a joint project between the two countries and there is a very good reason for that.”

The office of the Ugandan government spokesman in a statement said a meeting of Cabinet had authorized the surfacing or upgrading of the road from the border to Congo’s town of Beni as well as the road from the border post of Bunagana to the city of Goma.

The projects will boost investment and improve security in eastern Congo, the statement said.

Uganda’s decision to cooperate with Congo comes amid a standoff with neighboring Rwanda, once a major export destination for grains and other produce.

Rwanda’s government closed a busy border crossing with Uganda in February 2019 in what Uganda describes as a trade embargo. Rwanda’s government ordered its citizens not to travel to Uganda, asserting that Rwandan citizens were not safe across the border.

Rwandan authorities also accused Uganda’s government of backing rebels opposed to President Paul Kagame. Ugandan officials in turn accused Rwandan state agents of operating unlawfully in Uganda, including in alleged abductions of citizens wanted back home.

 latest006 pix

Museveni: Uganda ‘badly’ needs DR Congo road projects

Friday October 09 2020
 By Job Bwire

President Museveni Friday said his government had agreed with neighbouring countries like DR Congo to jointly develop infrastructure that will boost trade in the region.

However, the proposal recently received criticism.

In his Independence address at State House, Entebbe the president described the critics as shameless, arguing that Uganda “badly needs” the Shs243.7 billion ($65.9m) road projects.

“I saw some shameless people in parliament saying, this stupid man Museveni: why are you building roads in Congo yet our roads have problems. We've reached an agreement to develop infrastructure with our trade partners in the region like Congo. We are earning about USD 500 million a year from DRC. How can you stop me from partnering with DRC to develop roads there that support our trade? The terrible roads are hindering business,” he said before adding that government also plans to sell electricity to DRC.

According to the president, the road projects in DRC will earn Uganda income through trade, which income will in turn be used to construct the poor roads in Uganda.

The 223km road to be constructed consists of the Kasindi section at the border to Beni (80km) plus the integration of the Beni-Butembo stretch (54km). It also consists of the Bunagana to Rutsuru-Goma Road (89km).


In his Independence speech, the president also reiterated that Uganda will start manufacturing own cars.

“I no longer want to hear about imported and assembled busses. We are going to make them ourselves. Under Kiira Motor corporation project, two electric busses have already been made,” Museveni said.

He said government had prioritised investment in science and innovation.

“We have an educated human resource and a portion of the economy will be built from their intellect”

According to him, government plans to set up a specialised agricultural bank that will be able to give affordable capital to Ugandan farmers.

"We are thinking of setting up an agricultural bank in Uganda because the commercial banks we have are really commercial banks. They are there to fund traders who go to china and to bring taka-taka (trash)," Mr Museveni added.