Could John's baptism forgive sins?

During the Saturday Catechumen class, we were reading Mark 1:1-8. The class consists of catechumens who are undergoing instructions to prepare for baptism. There are also baptized Catholics who want to brush up their faith. Indeed, the Church has been talking about New Evangelization among the baptized. To a certain extent, the Hong Kong Diocese is running ahead of the other churches and is doing a good job in providing theological training not just for the clergy but also for the laity.

When we came to Mark 1:4, some Catholics showed signs of puzzlement. Isn't only Christian baptism the only baptism that is capable of forgiving sins? Why does the gospel say that John's baptism can forgive sins? The Christian baptism is a sacrament while John's baptism is not. If John's baptism is not a sacrament, it does not give grace and so it cannot forgive sins. This simplistic line of reasoning is understandable. Perhaps the instructors of these Catholics had not received adequate theological training or they were too eager to defend the superiority of Christian baptism over John's baptism so much so that they ignore the gospel! Of course the gospel cannot be wrong. That is to say John's baptism could indeed forgive sins. No theology can overwrite the bible. But then, how can we harmonize this gospel text with sacramental theology?

First of all, sacraments are the products of the Church. The disciples of John the Baptist failed to build up their church. They left behind no writings of their own. Their existence was only inferred from the Acts of the Apostles. Therefore, nowadays there is no such thing as the baptism of John the Baptist to challenge the supremacy of Christian baptism, i.e. their ability to forgive sins.

Secondly, since the gospel cannot be wrong, we should ask how the Baptist's baptism could forgive sins. All the Synoptic gospels report that Jesus was baptized by the Baptist. It seems a bit embarrassing for Christians because we can imagine how the disciples of John the Baptist would tease their Christian counterparts --- "Your Master Jesus was also baptized by our Master John. So, Jesus was also a disciple of John the Baptist like one of us. Therefore, call us Masters!" We can further imagine how Christian retorted by saying that Christian baptism gives the Holy Spirit and John's did not. This is a correct argument. The supremacy of Christian baptism over John's baptism lies at its ability to give the Holy Spirit.

Thirdly, it was a popular HKCEE RS question to ask why the sinless Jesus should receive baptism from John. One of the model answers was that Jesus showed his approval of the work of John the Baptist. This answer is redundant because the gospel already says that John was the forerunner sent by God to prepare the hearts of the Jews to receive the Messiah. Without God's commission, the Baptist could not baptize on his own. Prompted by this answer, I would rather suggest that Jesus came to sanctify John's baptism to make it capable of forgiving sins.
Traditional catechists usually say, in their piety, that Jesus came down to the water to sanctify the water so that it might wash away our sins when we receive Christian baptism. But this explanation cannot establish the monopoly of Christian baptism. If this explanation is accepted, any baptism with water should be able to forgive sins because water all over the world is the same. Otherwise, only water in River Jordan can forgive sins. No baptism held outside River Jordan would be valid! This is an unnecessary burden, very much like the circumcision required of Gentile believers.
There is always room for improvement for us catechists. Let's work hard to keep up.

Dear Lord, inflame the hearts of your servants to know you better. Amen.