Dear Larry:

If this priest actually said this he needs to be horse-whipped and sent to a mountain-top monastery in Turkey for re-education.

If all that is needed is some liquid that contained some water then why not baptize with coca-cola, coffee, things too disgusting to mention, and any host of things. I thought I had heard it all. This assertion is so stupid that I am speechless.

Valid baptism must be perform with water, not some liquid that contains "some" water. In the Mass the priest pours a little bit of blessed water into the chalice of wine. The amount of water used does not change the wine in the slightest. But, if so much water was poured into the chalice that the wine ceased to be wine, but mostly water, then it would be invalid to use in the Mass.

While water is in beer, the appearance, taste, and substance of the liquid is beer, not water. It has ceased to be water and is, rather, beer.

This is not rocket science. I have no understanding of how a priest can come up with such an idea.

Perhaps there is more to this story. Perhaps the priest is saying that if someone is in danger of death and wants to be baptized, and there is no water available, then beer can be used. Well, first off, it only takes a drop of water to baptize. There is not a drop of water anywhere? Really? I doubt that.

Secondly, even in the case of the danger of death, a non-valid substance cannot be used. Water does not have to be pure, but it must substantially be water.  If there is some reason why a drop of water is not available, then the dying person receives a Baptism of Desire.

God Bless,
Bro. Ignatius Mary