Interesting how the parents aren’t masked up at all. I’m wondering they were part of the anti-mask crowd snd didn’t even care about all of these precautions anyways. At least the priest was trying to stay safe, but yeah, it looks silly as fuck. You’d think they’d just let the parents have done it instead, or does the holy water behave differently when splashed by a priest vs your parents?

[–] RQG@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Maybe that'd establish a precedent that a Priest wasn't actually needed for the ceremony.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah, it takes great carefulness to remain uselessly employed.

[–] theragu40@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not sure if you're looking for an honest answer but the funniest/dumbest thing about this picture is that no, the "rules" are that anyone can baptize someone else. So it definitely doesn't need to be a priest. This entire scenario is completely unnecessary.

[–] paddirn@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I assumed it was something more for "officially" recognizing the child as being part of the Church, or some sort of thing like that. Interesting though, from the 5-minutes of googling that I did, it seems to be only in "extreme cases involving life or death" that anyone other than a priest or deacon would normally baptize somebody else. It would probably be debated about whether this was really a life or death situation, though it does seem like an unnecessary risk for that old priest given that the parents are unmasked. Literally all they had to do was sprinkle some water on the kid and say, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." and they could've avoided the silliness.

[–] Gabu@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

They're in a church, the silliness is literally all around them.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

It's all part of the careful dance of the uselessly employed.