Baptism for baby of lesbian couple?

[QuestLove]

So, in an earlier post I had asked about if grandparents could take the child to be baptised. Culturally, sometimes a relative (usually a grandma) will request that the child be baptised even if the parents are not living a life that is respectable.
I could imagine a case where this lesbian couple or a cohabiting couple would baptise the baby for Grandma’s sake even if they themselves don’t believe. Or even a married couple who is no longer a part of the church, could they baptise the child even if they do not really believe and are just doing it for Grandma’s sake?

 

[LoyalViews]

There needs to be, in some part of this English speaking world so that it’d be easy for us to reference, a guideline or pastoral letter on those living in same-sex relationships and the children of those in same-sex relationships, regarding all aspects of Christian life and including baptism.

We know that a couple living as a man and woman would, only replacing each word with the same sex, is contrary to natural law and is a sin against purity and God’s design. However, we have to consider the child: it is an innocent baby, who through no fault of its own has been adopted by the couple or given birth by one of the mothers. There is no reason that a grandmother or another relative could be looked to to raise the child in his faith, and yes, that includes a proper understanding of the nature of human sexuality which will be difficult in this situation.

If this isn’t possible, then perhaps the bishop should be availed. If it is, then that relative needs to be contacted. Also, what about the godparents? They could play a special role in the child’s life, rearing them up in accordance with the faith.

This is an interesting situation. If the child isn’t going to be brought up Catholic, why baptise him? If he isn’t, maybe we should baptise him for the sake of it? If he will be, how will it be assured? All questions to be considered.

 

[edwest2]

Contact a local priest. That way, questions can be addressed directly.

Peace,
Ed

 

[sttcatherinefan]

I don’t think it is the sexual sins singled out as being evil, all sin is evil. In my opinion it is because there is no hope of a lesbian couple ever living together in a Sacramental marriage in the church.

A man-woman couple living together is just as sinful! It is mortal sin you are right! However there perhaps may be hope in discussing our counseling with the couple that they were discussing a future marriage in the Catholic church. Therefore a priest could possibly discern there was “reasonable hope” the infant child of theirs would be raised Catholic.

In a gay relationship there is no “reasonable hope” ever that this couple will be married and be able to attend Mass and receive Communion EVER. This puts the priest in a bind clearly. I agree it is hard but the Sacraments are not to be taken lightly, with them comes grace yes, but also great responsibility. If a priest believes that a child will not be raised in the faith then he needs to delay (it’s officially delay not deny) Baptism.

What about a remarried divorcee? There is no “hope” that the couple in that situation would be able to receive Communion. Should we deny baptism to their children as well? And I was pointing out that we are all sinners. If we are going to start denying babies’ baptism on the basis of sin, then we cannot single out sexual ones. For example, Bob and Jane Catholic were married in the right form but are very self absorbed and materialistic. They are guilty of the sin of greed. Perhaps Jane is also a notorious gossip who hasn’t actually left high school and sows division in the parish. Pope Francis talks quite often about gossip and how serious a sin it is. Should Bob and Jane’s child be denied baptism as well? There is more to Catholicism than just sex rules, much more. A gay or lesbian couple could actually be better Catholics than a straight couple married under the proper form.

And as has been pointed out here, delay really means denial. A child who is denied baptism is a baby is unlikely to desire to be baptized. Why would someone desire to be part of an organization that denied them membership as a baby?

 

[larsont7]

Canon 868 §1. For an infant to be baptized licitly:

1/ the parents or at least one of them or the person who legitimately takes their place must consent;

2/ there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion; if such hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be delayed according to the prescripts of particular law after the parents have been advised about the reason.

§2. An infant of Catholic parents or even of non-Catholic parents is baptized licitly in danger of death even against the will of the parents.

Whatever our “feelings” may be, the Church is pretty clear on this. A lesbian couple is living a life diametrically opposed to Catholic teaching on homosexuality, so there can be no founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion.

For this same reason, the Catholic Church does not baptize:

1. Protestants
2. Muslims
3. Jews
4. Atheists
5. Catholics in an invalid marriage
6. Catholics living in a perpetual state of mortal sin (unmarried cohabitating couples)

This has nothing to do with denying the baby salvation, but rather stressing the utmost importance of raising a baptized child as a faithful Catholic. I could go around and baptize a bunch of Muslim children in a swimming pool, but I would be committing a grave sin even though the graces in the baptisms would still be present.

 

[Valiente88]

Whatever our “feelings” may be, the Church is pretty clear on this. A lesbian couple is living a life diametrically opposed to Catholic teaching on homosexuality, so there can be no founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion.

For this same reason, the Catholic Church does not baptize:

1. Protestants
2. Muslims
3. Jews
4. Atheists
   ***5. Catholics in an invalid marriage
5. Catholics living in a perpetual state of mortal sin (unmarried cohabitating couples)***

This is incorrect, the Church can and has baptized the children and those in invalid marriages.

One of my divorced sisters cohabits with a non practicing Catholic, and there was no issue whatsoever getting their son baptized.

 

[sttcatherinefan]

Whatever our “feelings” may be, the Church is pretty clear on this. A lesbian couple is living a life diametrically opposed to Catholic teaching on homosexuality, so there can be no founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion.

For this same reason, the Catholic Church does not baptize:

1. Protestants
2. Muslims
3. Jews
4. Atheists
5. Catholics in an invalid marriage
6. Catholics living in a perpetual state of mortal sin (unmarried cohabitating couples)

This has nothing to do with denying the baby salvation, but rather stressing the utmost importance of raising a baptized child as a faithful Catholic. I could go around and baptize a bunch of Muslim children in a swimming pool, but I would be committing a grave sin even though the graces in the baptisms would still be present.

So you don’t think that babies of remarried divorcees and single moms should be baptized. I know that Pope Francis is against this and even baptized the child of a civilly married couple last January. There are gay and lesbian couples who are practicing Catholics and would raise their kids Catholic.

An example of why someone might not baptize a child is the following scenario: an orphan being cared for by the Sisters of Charity in Mumbai. Most of the people in Mumbai are Hindus or Muslims and the nuns don’t know the orphan’s background or if the child is lucky enough to be adopted, the religion of the adopted parents. Radical Hindus or Muslims might also stir up opposition against the nuns if they go around baptizing the orphans in their care. In that case, the nuns shouldn’t baptize their charges. This is completely different from a case when the parents come to a priest and ask for baptism.

 

[rcwitness]

So you don’t think that babies of remarried divorcees and single moms should be baptized. I know that Pope Francis is against this and even baptized the child of a civilly married couple last January. There are gay and lesbian couples who are practicing Catholics and would raise their kids Catholic.

That’s the contention with the issue, that they are NOT practicing the Catholic faith. And their example is in contradiction to the Gospel. And its an open shameless lifstyle. They call what is a rejection of godliness good and healthy.

But our good pope does not withold Baptism from these Children because their forgiveness and gift of the Holy Spirit to them personally does not depend on their adoptor’s holiness. But their spiritual growth and understanding of obedience to God does depend on their guardians and caretakers.

 

[stbruno]

This is definitely an ethical dilemma. I am discussing it with out diocese’s canon lawyers, because this is actually happening at our parish right now and I am involved directly in the baptismal prep. Please pray for me and those who are making this discernment.

 

[27lw]

Before I became Catholic 6 years ago, my husband and I were looking into having our children baptized in the Church. He was a baptized Catholic, who had been non-practicing. I was baptized Lutheran, who was in RCIA. The priest of the parish baptized our children, but then made a rule requiring the parents to be practicing members of the parish for one full year before he would baptize them. Maybe the priest could require something like this of the lesbian parents. Not sure if they would show up week after week for one year?

 

[Joe_5859]

Before I became Catholic 6 years ago, my husband and I were looking into having our children baptized in the Church. He was a baptized Catholic, who had been non-practicing. I was baptized Lutheran, who was in RCIA. The priest of the parish baptized our children, but then made a rule requiring the parents to be practicing members of the parish for one full year before he would baptize them. Maybe the priest could require something like this of the lesbian parents. Not sure if they would show up week after week for one year?

I can see how such policies seem like a good idea, but I wonder at their value. If someone just moved to the area, is the pastor really going to delay Baptism of their newborn simply because they haven’t been there a year? That strikes me as a bit problematic.

 

[27lw]

I agree Joe, I have mixed feelings about the rule. I’m not sure if the pastor ever waives / relaxes the rule at all. It is quite a small parish, and there are lots of large multi-generational families. At the time, I chalked it up to the pastor just wanting to be sure that the parents were taking the faith seriously. I guess me and my husabnd seemed pretty shady!!! : )

 

[OraLabora]

It boils down to this: do we take a wide pastoral view on the “hope” that the child be brought up Catholic, or do we take the narrow legalistic interpretation of that Canon? None of us are really qualified to say.

As student of Benedictine values, my opinion is to be doctrinally orthodox, but pastorally lenient in circumstances such as these. But as I (nor anyone else here) has any kind of jurisdiction, we have to respect the decisions of those who do.

 

[janjic222]

With Canon Law 868 everything is said clearly. No need for debate. Baptism is valid, but it should not be performed

[edited]

 

[OraLabora]

With Canon Law 868 everything is said clearly. No need for debate. Baptism is valid, but it should not be performed

Yes I do.

I would be careful, it’s against forum rules to make accusations against specific, identifiable members of the clergy.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2363943&postcount=6

Identifying individual parishes, clergy, or hierarchs as “unfaithful to the Magisterium”, guilty of “liturgical abuse”, or otherwise engaged in unacceptable or unpopular practices, based on personal “knowledge” or opinion

 

[janjic222]

I would be careful, it’s against forum rules to make accusations against specific, identifiable members of the clergy.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2363943&postcount=6

I haven’t talked specificly in the beggining and it was not my intention, but when somebody asked me, I answered. Besides, is Canon Law “my oppinion”? What about priests that are attacked for “participating in holocaust” on this forum? Attacking somebody based on you historical oppinion is Ok, but attacking somebody based on Canon Lae is against the rules???

 

[sttcatherinefan]

I haven’t talked specificly in the beggining and it was not my intention, but when somebody asked me, I answered. Besides, is Canon Law “my oppinion”? What about priests that are attacked for “participating in holocaust” on this forum? Attacking somebody based on you historical oppinion is Ok, but attacking somebody based on Canon Lae is against the rules???

So I’m assuming that you think that Pope Francis is a “modernist” as well because he has the same opinion on these matters. And I don’t even know what you are talking about with that ridiculous accusation. What holocaust would priests be participating in?

 

[janjic222]

So I’m assuming that you think that Pope Francis is a “modernist” as well because he has the same opinion on these matters. And I don’t even know what you are talking about with that ridiculous accusation. What holocaust would priests be participating in?

My point was that there is no need for admins who haven’t banned protestants that talk abou “the role of the Church in holocaust” to ban me. Bishop’s actions are not infalible, so my words aren’t sinful. Modernist is a person who dennies parts of Church’s doctrine because he/she doesn’t want world to hate him/her. What’s unclear here? What I wanted to say was that baptism of infant who’se parents live in sin is wrong, unless there is danger of death. I haven’t mentioned bishops at all, but somebody asked me if it’s OK if bishop does something against Canon Law and I said “No”.

 

[OraLabora]

[edited]

What isn’t defined, BTW, in the Canon Law is what consists of a “founded hope”. Clearly that requires a subjective assessment of the exact pastoral circumstances, and it is clearly within the competency of the Ordinary and the Presbyter to make that assessment, not ours. [edited]

[edited]