Recording A Barely 9 Year-Old Baptism In Mls As A C.O.R

[Bernard Gui]

Current ward clerk, former bishop. My guess is the MLS folks will tell you to take it up with the

local authorities, ie., mission and stake president. Hopefully, the three of you can work out

a solution that satisfies the letter and the spirit of the law and gets this young person into

the fold.

When I have asked technical questions about the MLS system, the MLS people have responded with answers or suggestions, but when I have asked priesthood procedure questions, they always refer me back to the local

authorities, as they should.

I pray you all can work it out so that good will come to all concerned, even the dad.

Bernard

Bernard

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I was unaware there are different degrees(?) of baptism... a baptism is a baptism to me... but what do I know. But if you want my opinion, this kid is obviously not a "convert" baptism, as he has been faithfully raised, in the church, by his mother.

[Calm]

My husband who is currently a ward clerk said there is no difference on the actual record, that the only thing in our stake that keeps track of the difference doesn't include names, just numbers....so it may not be an actual issue.

It's a pity it's not in our stake, it's known for tailoring to individual needs.

Edited November 9, 2011 by calmoriah

[blackstrap]

Just plain dumb adminitrative nonsense.We should "minister " to the saints,not administer them.I say baptise the boy before he is nine ...and repent later.

[Calm]

I would say so too...except it sounds like the fallout not only for rongo, but maybe the family would be worse. Does the SP have to sign off on baptisms? Could he declare a baptism null and void if he hadn't?

Seems to me if the paperwork/approval process goes through before the birthday, that the baptism is after the ninth birthday just may be irrelevant.

Edited November 9, 2011 by calmoriah

[ksfisher]

The key to this situation, to me, seems to be priesthood keys. Once the child turns 9 years old the bishop no longer holds the priesthood keys necessary to baptize this child. The mission president does. I like the suggestions for teaching the family at church. Even a family that is strong in the gospel can benefit from being taught by the missionaries.

MLS is not the key the the situation, the priesthood is.

[Calm]

The key to this situation, to me, seems to be priesthood keys. Once the child turns 9 years old the bishop no longer holds the priesthood keys necessary to baptize this child. The mission president does.

Not according to my husband but he didn't check the handbook, are you certain?

[ksfisher]

Not according to my husband but he didn't check the handbook, are you certain?

Baptism and Confirmation Interviews

The bishop or an assigned counselor conducts interviews for the baptism and confirmation of 8-year-old children who are members of record and 8-year-old children who are not members of record but have at least one parent or guardian who is a member.

Full-time missionaries interview converts (as defined in 20.3.2) for baptism and confirmation.

From the above a bishop does not interview anyone who is defined as a convert.

20.3.9

Confirmation and the Gift of the Holy Ghost

A person is confirmed a member of the Church and receives the gift of the Holy Ghost after being baptized (see D&C 20:41). A person becomes a member of the Church only after the ordinances of baptism and confirmation are both completed and properly recorded (see John 3:5; D&C 33:11).

The bishop holds the keys for confirming 8-year-old members of record. The mission president holds the keys for confirming converts. However, the bishop oversees the performance of this ordinance, whether it is for an 8-year-old member of record or a convert. The bishop ensures that it is performed soon after baptism.

Again, this ordinance falls under the stewardship of the mission president.

[mfbukowski]

I have a boy in my ward who turns nine on Thursday. I interviewed him for baptism a year ago, and have twice brought up the need to have him baptized to his mother over the last year. Stake baptism day is Saturday, and that is the only day children of record may be baptized in my stake, no exceptions, worlds without end. I would like to re-interview him and have him baptized on Saturday, but he will technically be nine years old by two days.

There are extenuating circumstances: his father is an abusive alcoholic who causes scenes and flies off the handle (he's not all there). He's also quasi-apostate. The mother and father are married, but the father lives in a shed in the back of the property out of the kindness of the mother's heart (he's a wretch who can't take care of himself). The mother purposely keeps the kids away from their father for the most part.

Normally, a nine year-old who is baptized is a convert baptism and must be taught the discussions. In this case, I agree with the mother that it would be best not to involve them. They live in abject poverty, living solely off of the sale of eggs from her numerous hens and welfare. My interactions with the father indicate to me that it would be extremely disruptive and ugly to have the missionaries teach the boy at their house, because of the father (he's intimately aware of visitors). The mother and the three children attend church regularly, and there are no concerns from a readiness/understanding of the covenant standpoint.

My question, for the forum, is whether anyone knows if we will have trouble recording a child of record baptism in MLS if the child is technically nine? In other words, will MLS not let us record it?

A second question I'm chewing on is whether there is a jurisdictio nproblem with keys over the baptism (must it be through the missionaries with the child being nine, because it is then under the mission president instead of the bishop/stake president)?

Very interested in people's experiences, insights, observations, etc.! Thanks in advance.

You might definitely have problems both with MLS and the keys issue. Nine years old is nine years old. I feel for you, but in my experience, you will have troubles.

On the other hand- if the Stake President OK's it, you are home free. Stake presidents can do just about anything they like in their stakes as long as of course there is a good reason etc. If I were the bishop here, I would just give him a call.

[mfbukowski]

She's amazing. She has *never* come to the church for any help, although she merits it more than those who do. There's a real danger of hurting her feelings if I was to offer something like that (it would make it obvious that others are mindful of her situation). My wife and I have thought about buying her some dresses and things for Christmas, but worry that that would also hurt her pride in a bad way (she only owns two very old dresses).

She is a paragon of self-reliance in working with what she has. She taught a bread-making lesson for a Relief Society Meeting, and she has a real knack for that. Her pumpernickel is wonderful, and she developed a recipe that substitutes cocoa for coffee in it.

What if the clothes just appeared at her front door?

[mfbukowski]

I understand that completely having been there a time or two. Some gentle and wise counsel from a loveing Bishop helped me to see beyond myself and my pride. President Monson did counsel to seek out the needy a couple of conferences ago.

Perhaps if some opportunities were opened to let her do service for service she would be more receptive. Perhaps have her familyclean the chapel and provide gasoline for them to travel to do it. A tankful when she drives to do service.

Service is a great equalizer. It will also help her to realize that on one hand she does service for others, but she must also learn to accept others service on her behalf.

That is the gospel in action- we must be humble as well as serve others. It goes both ways.

[mfbukowski]

My husband who is currently a ward clerk said there is no difference on the actual record, that the only thing in our stake that keeps track of the difference doesn't include names, just numbers....so it may not be an actual issue.

It's a pity it's not in our stake, it's known for tailoring to individual needs.

The issue is who does the interview and who judges whether or not the person should be baptized. It is a proceedural issue and one of who has the right keys to do the interview and make the judgement call- that is the question.

I used to be fairly liberal in allowing members near the borders of the ward, but technically outside the ward, to attend. But then it was pointed out to me that in the Lord's church, strictly speaking, we didn't have the keys to serve those folks who lived outside the ward. Order is essential in his church.

It got me thinking.

[ERayR]

Service is a great equalizer. It will also help her to realize that on one hand she does service for others, but she must also learn to accept others service on her behalf.

That is the gospel in action- we must be humble as well as serve others. It goes both ways.

Some years back I had a chance to learn that lesson up close and personal so yes I agree.

[ERayR]

I would say so too...except it sounds like the fallout not only for rongo, but maybe the family would be worse. Does the SP have to sign off on baptisms? Could he declare a baptism null and void if he hadn't?

Seems to me if the paperwork/approval process goes through before the birthday, that the baptism is after the ninth birthday just may be irrelevant.

It's not irrelevent. The baptism is recorde as of the date of the baptism, not interview date. The MLS system is a computer and only does what it is programed to do and it is programed to recognize key dates. One of those is dates of ordinances relevent to birthdays.

[rongo]

Thank you to everybody for your thoughts and insights! They have been very helpful for me as I have worked on this issue.

I met with both the mother and father and the boy last night. The dad is what I call a “functional alcoholic,” by which I mean that he functions pretty well physically and mentally while still being under the influence. He smelled of alcohol, through his skin, not just through his breath (a flashback to my mission ---- we lived in a garden house in an elderly couple’s back yard, and they lived from dawn to dusk off of hard liquor. He picked me up at the train station in his “default setting,” and I doubt if he could function in any way while “on the wagon.” We used to joke that you wouldn’t test his blood-alcohol level, you would test his alcohol-blood level ---- how much blood is in the alcohol in his veins).

The father made it clear that it is important to him that his son be baptized. He explained that he is a baptized member, but never received any level of Aaronic priesthood. He has doctrinal hang-ups about the Church, but recognizes the Church’s authority.

I called the stake president this morning, and he is going to contact the mission president to see about him authorizing us to baptize him on Saturday. If he insists that this be a convert baptism (including missionary lessons), we could baptize him tonight if the stake president authorizes it (like I said, there’s a long story there and some history, which I’ll have to explain later when I have more time). That would be quite rushed and less than ideal, so at this point we’re sitting tight and waiting for authorization.

I agree with those who have said that this is a priesthood key issue, and that’s been my concern (in addition to the emotional state of the family). There have been a lot of good points and thoughts that deserve a response, and I’ll have to get to them later when I have time.

Thanks again!

[ERayR]

Thank you to everybody for your thoughts and insights! They have been very helpful for me as I have worked on this issue.

I met with both the mother and father and the boy last night. The dad is what I call a “functional alcoholic,” by which I mean that he functions pretty well physically and mentally while still being under the influence. He smelled of alcohol, through his skin, not just through his breath (a flashback to my mission ---- we lived in a garden house in an elderly couple’s back yard, and they lived from dawn to dusk off of hard liquor. He picked me up at the train station in his “default setting,” and I doubt if he could function in any way while “on the wagon.” We used to joke that you wouldn’t test his blood-alcohol level, you would test his alcohol-blood level ---- how much blood is in the alcohol in his veins).

The father made it clear that it is important to him that his son be baptized. He explained that he is a baptized member, but never received any level of Aaronic priesthood. He has doctrinal hang-ups about the Church, but recognizes the Church’s authority.

I called the stake president this morning, and he is going to contact the mission president to see about him authorizing us to baptize him on Saturday. If he insists that this be a convert baptism (including missionary lessons), we could baptize him tonight if the stake president authorizes it (like I said, there’s a long story there and some history, which I’ll have to explain later when I have more time). That would be quite rushed and less than ideal, so at this point we’re sitting tight and waiting for authorization.

I agree with those who have said that this is a priesthood key issue, and that’s been my concern (in addition to the emotional state of the family). There have been a lot of good points and thoughts that deserve a response, and I’ll have to get to them later when I have time.

Thanks again!

Bless you bishop your calling is not easy but it does have its rewards. Again bless you.

Edited November 9, 2011 by ERayR

[frankenstein]

Call the mission president explain it all to him and get his permission, because at nine you as bishop no longer have the authority over the baptism.

However interview the child while the child is still eight then you do not need to deal with the missionaries as for mls just make it a convert.

Edited November 9, 2011 by frankenstein

[Freedom]

If you are the bishop, why are you putting this story out on a public forum? If this story is true, it would be very easy for those involved to find out that you have made very public their private affairs and you have violated . As for child of record baptisms, the decision would be up to the Bishop and if necessary in consultation with the Stake President. The stake actually has no authority over baptisms, it is entirely under the direction of the Bishop so you can hold the baptism any time you want. The reason why some stakes have set days for child of record baptisms is if there are such a high number of them that the building would be booked non-stop for such ordinances. It is designed to save resources. Regardless, the Bishop can do what ever he wants.

Once a Child is nine years of age, however, the Bishop loses all control over the baptism and it becomes the responsibility of the mission so you have no authority to make a decision on this matter. The Bishop cannot sign off on a baptism for a person who is nine years or older.

Of course, I have not been in a Bishopric since the new policy manual came out so perhaps hand book provides some options.

[mfbukowski]

I think those who have mentioned that perhaps these rules are trivial do not understand the chaos which results when they are not observed. Records "fall through the cracks", people move, get ordained and want to get married, for example, and discover that there is no record that they were actually baptized. There are procedures to correct such issues, but who wants to mess with worrying about baptismal records when you are ready to get married?

The bigger issue really is the priesthood key issue- bishops are ordained to be over specific wards, and wards have geographic boundaries, and different leaders, like mission presidents in this case, have the keys to minister to converts. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and made clear, to avoid conflict about who does what.

At first glance, what seems trivial could in fact become issues of contention, and contention is not of the Lord. We are all very imperfect human beings who misunderstand and are easily misunderstood. The last thing we need is to have leaders who are not sure what their responsibilities are making wrong decisions with consequences which could ripple through someone's life for years to come.

We have a lot of immigrants in Southern California, and because of the rapid growth of the church, many come from areas where newly baptized members who are not familiar with the rules may be clerks or bishops or even stake presidents, and we have many cases where for example, a Melchizadek priesthood ordination may be recorded AFTER an endowment date, etc. Was that endowment "valid" if the brother did not have the Priesthood yet? Should we re-ordain him? Was his sealing to his wife valid? Was this child really baptized or not? She is now 15 and says she remembers her baptism- do we have any witnesses? This couple want to be sealed, but we cannot verify that he was even baptized- what do we do?

This person now needs a major welfare contribution, but we cannot verify that he was baptized, or who his former bishop was- is he lying about being a member?

These are all actual cases which illustrate how difficult it can become down the road when we "just follow the spirit and don't worry about these trivial matters". Unfortunately, that happens especially in the "mission field" all too often!

We work it out, of course, but it is so much easier just to do it right the first time.

[Judd]

I'd try working with the missionaries and/or mission president if you can just have the missionaries come to interview for baptism. So long as he passes the interview requirements and has met all the other obligation (church attendance, etc.), as I'm assuming you believe he has, they may be flexible on their end given the newly-minted nine-year-old status.

[ERMD]

If you are the bishop, why are you putting this story out on a public forum? If this story is true, it would be very easy for those involved to find out that you have made very public their private affairs and you have violated . As for child of record baptisms, the decision would be up to the Bishop and if necessary in consultation with the Stake President. The stake actually has no authority over baptisms, it is entirely under the direction of the Bishop so you can hold the baptism any time you want. The reason why some stakes have set days for child of record baptisms is if there are such a high number of them that the building would be booked non-stop for such ordinances. It is designed to save resources. Regardless, the Bishop can do what ever he wants.

Once a Child is nine years of age, however, the Bishop loses all control over the baptism and it becomes the responsibility of the mission so you have no authority to make a decision on this matter. The Bishop cannot sign off on a baptism for a person who is nine years or older.

Of course, I have not been in a Bishopric since the new policy manual came out so perhaps hand book provides some options.

This is all anonymous, so there are no confidentiality issues here.

A bishop most certainly can NOT "do whatever he wants" in ecclesiastical or administrative matters.

[rongo]

Update:

Hallelujah! The mission president has no problem with us baptizing the boy tomorrow (Saturday) without missionary lessons or without a district leader interview. The missionaries will do the paperwork and it will be recorded as a convert baptism. My family will be out of town for a convert endowment and sealing (a rare road trip and hotel stay for us --- big treat for the kids), so my counselors will baptize and confirm him. The father requested that I perform the ordinances, but asked that they visit him today so he can "look them in the eye and take their measure as men."

A wonderful outcome! Thank you all for the helpful insights and observations.

[rongo]

Freedom:

If you are the bishop, why are you putting this story out on a public forum? If this story is true, it would be very easy for those involved to find out that you have made very public their private affairs and you have violated .

ERMD:

This is all anonymous, so there are no confidentiality issues here.

Thank you, ERMD. Freedom, your point is well-taken. Although there’s no way even a member of my ward could identify whom I am talking about based on what I wrote (some are aware of various aspects of the home economy and some vague issues with the father, but not close to this extent), I think I could have been much more cautious. Thank you for the gentle/firm admonition . . . J

I have received some extremely helpful insights, observations, and experiences here *because* I gave as much anonymous detail as I did. If I had merely asked if it would be okay for a bishop to baptize a nine year-old child two days past his birthday and record it in MLS as a C.o.R. baptism, there would really be little or nothing to say. The extenuating details were everything.

Freedom:

As for child of record baptisms, the decision would be up to the Bishop and if necessary in consultation with the Stake President. The stake actually has no authority over baptisms, it is entirely under the direction of the Bishop so you can hold the baptism any time you want. The reason why some stakes have set days for child of record baptisms is if there are such a high number of them that the building would be booked non-stop for such ordinances. It is designed to save resources. Regardless, the Bishop can do whatever he wants.

This is *very* interesting, in light of things that have happened to me over the last several months. I agree with you, and this was a sticking point between me and the counselors in the stake presidency. Our stake has a monthly stake baptism day, which we have followed in almost all cases over the last four years. When it came to their attention that I had authorized a few (four) child of record baptisms at times other than stake baptism day (without conflicting with anything else, of course), they went ballistic. It rankled even more that in each case, the stake president had personally authorized them for us, one-on-one, while asking us to do what we can to not broadcast the fact. One of these involved the stake center font (which our stake only uses for convert baptisms, never children of record). A family was going on an extended two month trip beginning on their child of record’s 8^th birthday, and we didn’t want her to be baptized two months later. There was a full-building, all day schedule conflict for the building used for C.o.R. baptisms, so I asked the building scheduler for the stake center if we could use it for that. He told us that the counselors had told him in no uncertain terms that the stake center font could never be used for C.o.R. baptisms, worlds without end. He told me he agreed with our situation, but don’t shoot the messenger, etc. I got approval from the stake president to do this, and he and his wife about fainted, so adamant had the counselors been.

In the ensuing extended discussion about this, concessions were made in the formal stake policy that aligned closely with what I had interpreted it to be all along (almost always stake baptism day, except in rare exceptions authorized by the stake president). An interesting discussion ensued where I asked if bishops have any real keys, actually, or if they only act in everything by delegation of the stake president’s keys (glorified high priest group leaders compared to elders quorum presidents, etc.). No, no, of course they have real keys ----- to which I asked, how, specifically? Not to say that of course bishops act under the direction and keys of the stake president, but the counselors rejected the notion that bishops, as presidents of the Aaronic priesthood in their wards, preside over C.o.R baptisms and can do them when they need to, while trying to accommodate stake policy. When I asked if a bishop needed permission to authorize a C.o.R. baptism in a lake or ditch (i.e., a David B. Haight or Spencer W. Kimball “horse trough” baptism), their initial answer was “no,” and that it had to be on stake baptism day, anyway, but that changed with the updated formal policy.

Senator:

This strikes me as the best solution.........and the most adventurous!!

I like fireworks!

I’ve had my fill of adventure and fireworks in wrestling with the stake presidency counselors over this. Adventure and fireworks are overrated . . . J

Freedom:

Once a Child is nine years of age, however, the Bishop loses all control over the baptism and it becomes the responsibility of the mission so you have no authority to make a decision on this matter. The Bishop cannot sign off on a baptism for a person who is nine years or older.

It was specifically items like this, as I pondered and prayed about this, that I found to be very helpful. I began to have grave concerns from a key standpoint about doing this without mission president authorization, which led me to seek for this.

[rongo]

calmoriah:

Sometimes one needs to worry about the little things in order to not be overwhelmed by the big things. Doesn't always make sense, but we each cope in our own ways.

She should be praised for keeping her family going and going to church under difficult pressures, not sure counseling her on this specific issue would help remove pressure or make it worse, rongo is on the best position to know, of course.

Amen. Several years ago, while serving as a counselor in a bishopric in another ward, a family suffered a catastrophic economic setback (the father lost his job, and the economy had begun to grind to a halt). In calling him and his wife to callings and inquiring generally about how things were going, they had very peaceful, happy countenances and related that the father had gotten a much lower-paying job to generate some cash flow while he actively and patiently applied for work more in line with his family’s needs. They had consistently refused fast offering assistance and were getting by, and reported that they had decided to have a 100% homemade family Christmas, with gifts for each other made by each other. The teenagers and older children were excited about this (their youngest was 11 or so). This resonated with me because our family had shifted our focus to Christ and the magic of the season (and it has remained there). We limit our gifts to one store-bought gift for each child and homemade gifts for each other. The planning, making, and presenting of these homemade gifts is the highlight of all of our Christmas. At a welfare committee meeting, the Relief Society president, who was exceedingly wealthy, conspicuously so, announced that she had planned a ca. $2000 dollar opulent Christmas to be delivered anonymously (Secret Santa) to this family. My input was that I felt this would be ill-advised and spiritually damaging to them (I was much more diplomatic than that), and I explained about how happy they were with their self-reliant “reduce and simplify” outlook. She strongly felt that we should override their considerations and do it anyway, because they were clearly just putting on a good public face and that it was unthinkable and unconscionable for anyone to have solely homemade gifts. The thought was revolting to her. The bishop agreed with me, and we “pulled out of the dive” on this one.

I think this sister’s psyche and emotional make-up definitely are such that anonymously helping or insisting on her accepting fast offering assistance would be spiritually damaging and embarrassing to her, along the lines of the following counsel from President Packer. Doing this would make it painfully clear and obvious to her that she is not a good enough provider for her family, in the eyes of outside observers who obviously have been focusing quite a bit on her situation.

We stress industry, thrift, and self-reliance only to find these very virtues, once established, may work against us. For [many members], an assessment [in time and money they] cannot reasonably meet calls up conflicting emotions. Those feelings . . . are not good feelings for Latter-day Saints.

We must never forget to teach the law of consecration and the law of sacrifice. But remember, they are His to enforce, not ours. Though we may require much of the Saints, to impose more than is our right as leaders, however well intentioned, is to presume upon a prerogative that is not ours unless the servants of the Lord direct us . . . (Boyd K. Packer, “A Plea to Stake Presidents,” Leadership Training Meeting, April 1, 1988)

When we press [members] too hard, we infer that they aren’t good enough . . . If you understand the human ego at all, you will know that [members] will withdraw from activity rather than say they can’t afford the cost [in time and money].” (Boyd K. Packer, “Teach Them Correct Principles,” New Budget Program Satellite Broadcast, February 18, 1990.)

calmoriah

I think it is likely hard on her when she compares her current family status to the one she dreamed or planned for...it is possible that this is one of the few ideals (children baptized as children of record) that she has been able to believe she could still manage so its importance has become inflated in her mind, but sometimes when one has so little, little things become very, very important and meaningful and it seems a shame to deprive someone of such if one can avoid it.

This was a very astute and perceptive observation, and was really the driving force behind my quest to see if the stake and mission president couldn’t authorize an exception in their case, given the background.

[rongo]

LeSellers:

It might be time for her to have an interview with the bishop. This interview would consist of the bishop's telling her that she is being very selfish by not allowing others to receive the blessings that would come to them if she would allow them to help her.

For everyone who gives, there must be someone to receive. Both are blessed, but she seems determined to deny blessings to others. How selfish is that?

I cannot think of a less selfish person than this sister. I think there is a real distinction to be made between selfishness and the very real elements of the human ego and pride outlined by President Packer in a previous post.

That said, you’re also absolutely right, Lehi. The other side of the welfare coin is accepting help graciously and humbly, and this can be very hard. A few months after I was called as a bishop, my wife had some severe health problems and nearly died twice. She went through an extended period of hospital stays and had an ileostomy and a colostomy at the age of 29 (they had to remove sections of her large and small intestines because of massive clotting and dead tissue). Our four children were very young then, and I exhausted all of my paid leave before going on FMLA so I could take care of our children and take them to see their mom regularly. After she came back from the hospital, she was very weak because of the months in beds and severe disruption to her digestive tract’s ability to absorb nourishment. During this period of many months, while we never needed fast offering assistance (believe me, the stake president tried J ), anonymous friends and ward members kept us afloat with pretty large amounts of money secretly left. This was very helpful and timely, and we greatly appreciated it, although we couldn’t personally thank them. The problem is that in the years after, including last year, some pretty ambitious secret Santa undertakings have been carried out on our behalf, even though we were completely fine financially. This was actually very embarrassing to me, to be honest, because it meant that others obviously thought we were still struggling, but struggling silently. I came to be grateful for the gesture of love, and see these gestures for what they are. It has been very humbling for us.

Interestingly, a couple in our ward came in to receive some counsel on their substantial financial setbacks. This couple is a paragon of self-reliance principles, but they made it clear that they didn’t want anonymous care packages, envelopes with money, or secret Santa-ing being done with them. I smiled and related our experience with the above, and told them that if such things happened, it wouldn’t be because the bishop had initiated it or because it had been discussed in ward council. Yet, if such things happened, I counseled them to receive such love in the spirit they were given, and not to let the human humiliation of ego and pride cause them distress.

LeSellers:

Now, one wonders what the father, whose permission for his son to be baptized at all, as a Child of Record or as a Convert, is necessary, will say when asked about it. The OP does not give us any indication that he would be willing to allow it, or, on the other hand, that he would not. This may all be moot.

Interestingly, he was very adamant that he needed baptism at the hands of the LDS church Aaronic priesthood, despite his doctrinal and institutional hang-ups with the Church.