S
stbruno
Guest
Can the church licitly baptize a baby of a lesbian couple that intends to get civilly married? Are not they required to make a promise to "renounce Satan and all his evil acts…etc?
There has to be reasonable hope that they will raise child in spirit of Catholicism. That is in Canon law 868, so look it up if you want. Priests who baptise babies that have parents living in sin are modernists and they care more about the world than about God. Only exeption is when child is probaably going to die.Can the church licitly baptize a baby of a lesbian couple that intends to get civilly married? Are not they required to make a promise to "renounce Satan and all his evil acts…etc?
In such a case, can someone else take the child to be baptized then like a grandma or grandpa? Or do the parents have to be present at the baptism?There has to be reasonable hope that they will raise child in spirit of Catholicism. That is in Canon law 868, so look it up if you want. Priests who baptise babies that have parents living in sin are modernists and they care more about the world than about God. Only exeption is when child is probaably going to die.
If I may poke in, by delaying the baptism won’t you be reducing the chance of a child later becoming a Catholic to zero?And the way we raise a child “Catholic” is by our example, thoughts, words and deeds. So how can their lifestyle be a proper example. Kids only learn from what they are exposed to. So enrolling in religious instruction is not the only requirement. This is really a moral dilemma because it is one we are soon facing at our parish. I suggested that the item should first be submitted to the hierarchy of the diocese and let them make the decision before attempting it at a parish level. Do you think this is appropriate?? Delaying the baptism for sure.
So, the baby should be punished by being denied baptism?There has to be reasonable hope that they will raise child in spirit of Catholicism. That is in Canon law 868, so look it up if you want. Priests who baptise babies that have parents living in sin are modernists and they care more about the world than about God. Only exeption is when child is probaably going to die.
It would be more likely said the parents are the ones punishing the child by exposing it to a sinful lifestyle.So, the baby should be punished by being denied baptism?![]()
Are you saying that the Archbishop of Cordoba in Argentina is a Modernist?There has to be reasonable hope that they will raise child in spirit of Catholicism. That is in Canon law 868, so look it up if you want. Priests who baptise babies that have parents living in sin are modernists and they care more about the world than about God. Only exeption is when child is probaably going to die.
Wow. Interesting that you can see into the heart of every priest that has baptized a child of a couple living in sin.There has to be reasonable hope that they will raise child in spirit of Catholicism. That is in Canon law 868, so look it up if you want. Priests who baptise babies that have parents living in sin are modernists and they care more about the world than about God. Only exeption is when child is probaably going to die.
I would imagine that there are times that the priest simply doesn’t know that the couple is not married.This is really no different than situations where the couple is cohabitating.
Most priests interpret “reasonable hope” quite liberally. And I think it is good that they do so. If Baptism is necessary for salvation, it seems preferable that they give them the benefit of the doubt.
It will probably depend on the situation, though. I’m sure that some counsel would be in order.
Perhaps they care more about the soul of the child. You would potentially condemn a child to hell because of the sins of the parents?Priests who baptise babies that have parents living in sin are modernists and they care more about the world than about God. Only exeption is when child is probaably going to die.
Not under most circumstances. Yes, the parents or someone licitly representing them normally needs to be present at the baptism.In such a case, can someone else take the child to be baptized then like a grandma or grandpa? Or do the parents have to be present at the baptism?
NoIf I may poke in, by delaying the baptism won’t you be reducing the chance of a child later becoming a Catholic to zero?
Exactly. Is the hatred for lesbians by just some enough to condemn possibly to hell by denying it baptism?Perhaps they care more about the soul of the child. You would potentially condemn a child to hell because of the sins of the parents?![]()
You do realize that Baptism of an infant “alone” without the instruction of the Gospel, or even the contradicting lifestyle of the Gospel is far from assurance of salvation?Exactly. Is the hatred for lesbians by just some enough to condemn possibly to hell by denying it baptism?
If punishment of some is required, let it be the “mothers” and not the innocent baby.
A child denied once will not seek a potential second rejection from the Church. What if it dies in the meantime of this “delay” I wonder, are any priests happy to have that on their hands?The parents need to consult with the parish and consent to the Baptism. Also, the official Church teaching is not to ever DENY Baptism, only to DELAY it. There is a difference although a delay would still be painful I believe.