G
Galbin
Guest
My thoughts exactly!
- Status
C
CatholicSooner
Guest
wow…i just can’t get behind this and I truly believe that some non Catholics see things like this and it shapes their views of the church in a negative connotataion.
Sometimes I think we fall into the same trap that the Pharisees did in the time of Christ.
If Jesus was here on Earth and came across a young child, do you think he would care if the kid’s parents were religious before baptizes him? I don’t. A child has a soul that needs saving just like an adult.
C
CatholicSooner
Guest
I agree with all of this but I would be pretty surprised if he didn’t think gay marriage was very wrong. It is very wrong. Now, being gay is not “wrong” or a sin. If God did indeed make people gay, it wasn’t so they could marry each other, it was for them to obtain holiness through abstinence and prayer.I am in Europe. Would rather not say my exact location.
It seems from this forum that US Catholicism is indeed practiced very differently to here. For example, no priest would ever dream of not baptising the baby of a couple living together. As sad as it is, I know many couples who actually planned to have their babies outside marriage, which I just can’t get my head around at all. Anyhow, that’s off topic.
The only time I’ve heard a priest give a sermon on gayness was when he talked about the sacrament of marriage and said that God made gay people and that, “God doesn’t make mistakes”. So not exactly condemnation of them OR their actions, as he was talking about the concept of marriage. And if he felt gay marriage was so wrong, he definitely would have mentioned it. In general, the CC here seems to be focused on tolerance, acceptance and love. This priest has often mentioned the sorrow of women who have had abortions for example, but even then he mentions their pain and doesn’t scream about how evil they are. I for one am extremely against abortion, but my point is that the CC here seem to be all about love and tolerance. Most Christ-like.
Of course this is all my opinion.
R
Rau
Guest
God made everyone and everything. The priest’s observation says nothing at all about the choices made by people or God’s will for those people. As people made by God, everyone deserves respect.
R
Rau
Guest
Perhaps then you need to advocate through your diocese for the Canon Law to be changed. Or better still (by your reasoning) seek out opportunities to baptize unbaptized infants. All of us are able to baptize.
Strangely, Jesus did not spend his days baptizing all and sundry. His mission was to teach.
Personally, I think the “non-Catholics” you refer to would be irate if the Church went about baptizing infants and young children “at large”.
C
CatholicSooner
Guest
The part of your statement that I took offense to was that you said an infant doesn’t have a right to baptism. That is essentially saying that an infant doesn’t have the right to everlasting life.
I understand the cannon in regards to baptism but I think the Pharisees understood the old testament “cannon” as well. I simply don’t want the modern faithful to make the same mistakes and I want us to be able to look at the message of Jesus simplified at times to display compassion.
Here is a question…Baptism is baptism…whether it is through the catholic church or through the protestant church. Once baptized always baptized right? So I don’t see the issue of baptizing an infant whose only sin is the sin of Adam because his parents aren’t practicing our faith or any faith for that matter.
C
cheese_sdc
Guest
Ah, Catholicism. Where the sacraments are just another weapon in the culture wars.
G
glendab
Guest
Hello CS.
The comparison of the Church’s teaching and laws on this with the stubbornness of the Pharisees in the Old Testament really isn’t fair. You also mention the modern faithful mind being beyond this type of Pharisaical provisions. I wonder about that. I don’t ever want to be so smart I’m smarter than the Church. There is a heresy called Modernism. Well, you can believe and think anything you want to, but I’ll stick to the Church’s laws and teachings thank you very much.
Glenda
As has already been said further up the thread, the child cannot be Baptized if there is a danger that the child won’t be raised Catholic. Why is that? Because then the child will be responsible for all of the 10 Commandments, the Precepts of the Church and behaving like a Christian. That means his degree of culpability will increase to the degree you carry as a Baptized, Catechized adult with the use of your reason just as soon as he reaches the age of reason. He will then begin to incur the penalties of mortal sins for which he will still have no recourse because he hasn’t been told about the Sacrament of Penance. To prevent this, he wisdom of the Church is to refrain from Baptizing and hope and pray that the child finds his or her way to the Church once outside of the reach of the parents who have made a decision for him that he is stuck with till 18 or 21 or whenever, if ever.
The comparison of the Church’s teaching and laws on this with the stubbornness of the Pharisees in the Old Testament really isn’t fair. You also mention the modern faithful mind being beyond this type of Pharisaical provisions. I wonder about that. I don’t ever want to be so smart I’m smarter than the Church. There is a heresy called Modernism. Well, you can believe and think anything you want to, but I’ll stick to the Church’s laws and teachings thank you very much.
Glenda
C
CatholicSooner
Guest
I just don’t get it. Are you telling me that man is not responsible for mortal sins if he isn’t baptized? Surely not.
I will fully support erroring on the side of caution in regards to infant baptism. It is better to be baptized and fall away from the church than to never be baptized at all.
And again, if we are concerned about people staying Catholic after baptism, why do we not require rebaptism upon entering the church? If a protestant baptism is as valid as a Catholic baptism, why the stipulations?
Look in your heart…should an innocent child not be able to have the sanctifying grace of God just because his parents are not in good standing with the church?
G
Galbin
Guest
No offense, but that is kinda like saying being a serial killer isn’t wrong as long as you don’t kill anyone. Or being heterosexual isn’t wrong as long as you don’t marry the opposite sex. Our actions are defined by what we are, so I will never agree that being gay and thus having a gay relationship is wrong.
IRL most practicing Catholics in my country agree with me, but it seems everyone here is against gay relationships. Sad…
G
Galbin
Guest
Well, civil marriage for gay people had just passed in the country and he was giving a sermon on marriage. So if he was against gay marriage he would have said it was wrong. Just because one is a priest doesn’t mean one has to agree with absolutely everything the CC says. He’s not the only priest I have heard who disagrees with this either.
Instead of judging gay people’s actions, it would be better for the heterosexuals here (myself included) to praise God that we were lucky enough to be born straight. So we don’t have the burden of intolerance, stigma and judgement to deal with. I sure am glad to be a straight Catholic after spending time on this forum!!!
C
CatholicSooner
Guest
I’m sorry but have you talked to your priest personally about this? I would be EXTREMELY surprised if he didn’t think that gay relations is a sin. Being in support of civil unions is one thing and not bad but in the CC one can’t experience the sacrament of marriage unless it is a man and a woman.No offense, but that is kinda like saying being a serial killer isn’t wrong as long as you don’t kill anyone. Or being heterosexual isn’t wrong as long as you don’t marry the opposite sex. Our actions are defined by what we are, so I will never agree that being gay and thus having a gay relationship is wrong.
If this is truly your priest’s stance, I would assume he would be in support of polygamy and incestual relationships as well…
C
CatholicSooner
Guest
this isn’t necessarily true and if he was talking about civil marriages then it’s fine if he thinks those are ok. But if he was talking about sacramental marriage, that is not ok
R
Rau
Guest
If you believe infants at large have a right to baptism, do you propose to do domething about it?
Baptism, absent the appropriate upbringing, is not like pixie dust. It does not secure the child’s eternal future. Absence of baptism does not ensure damnation. We should have faith in God’s goodness.
C
CatholicSooner
Guest
Exactly, we agree. So there is no harm in baptizing an infant…
Would you not think that having the holy spirit come into an infant would be better than it not happening, independent on what happens the rest of the infant’s life?
I just don’t see why somebody would get worked up over an innocent baby being baptized. There are a lot more to worry about than that.
R
Rau
Guest
No. A serial killer is only such because he kills, not because he wants to kill. Are you suggesting that if one wants (homosexual) sex, then one must and will have it? That is wrong - you must distinguish desire from action. There are many persons, some on these forums, who experience sexual attraction to the same sex and fight those temptations and seek to live a chaste life. One such poster is a happily married man.No offense, but that is kinda like saying being a serial killer isn’t wrong as long as you don’t kill anyone. Or being heterosexual isn’t wrong as long as you don’t marry the opposite sex. Our actions are defined by what we are, so I will never agree that being gay and thus having a gay relationship is wrong.
“Our actions are defined by what we are”…is an amazing statement. “I am a man” - what action does that obligate? To pee standing up perhaps? I get to make that choice too.
The issue with gay civil marriage is not the commitment of 2 people to care for each other. I would have no difficulty with a civil framework being established for that purpose (and being called something other than ‘marriage’). The problem with “gay marriage” is the requirement that it be seen as a sexual relationship, recognised, affirmed and acclaimed by the State. That is to usurp Marriage.
R
Rau
Guest
Harm? How did harm come into the discussion? Hey, there is no harm in non-Catholics receiving the Eucharist either, so allow it! This observation is equally irrelevant, and a non-sequitur.
No, we don’t agree.
The Church has considered this matter, formulated a position and I and others agree with it and accept it. You do not. I guess it is up to you how you deal with the situation.
C
CatholicSooner
Guest
You didn’t address my post at all. figures.
Obviously it isn’t as black and white as you want it or think it to be because in the past the CHurch has baptized without two parents being practicing catholics and in the present there are situations that priests will baptize in the same scenario.
You are coming off as rather prideful. I would be a little weary of that. It’s not like the church hasn’t been wrong or changed teaching before.
C
CatholicSooner
Guest
Scripture tells us that one must be baptized to enter the kingdom of Heaven. I don’t believe that it is the only requirement obviously but God is merciful. So if a couple wants their child to be baptized in the Church but they admit they are not or will not be in good standing, I just don’t see the issue in baptizing the child. What if the church refuses and the boy grows to be 8 and is killed in a car crash and was never baptized? I would want to believe that God would have mercy but is it worth risking that?
R
Rau
Guest
Why do you attack me personally ? That is not appropriate.
To your first point, the Church does not require 2 practicing couples as the relevant factor. It requires a reasonable belief that the child will be brought up in the faith. The priest is to make that judgement.
To your last point, the Church has changed law (which is changeable) often, but not matters of faith (teaching). I both accept and agree with the law concerning baptism. As regrettable as it may be, the circumstances require that the faith journey of an infant without prospect of an upbringing in the faith start in a different manner, and at a different time.
If there is some part of your post I’ve not responded to, point it out and I will do so.
- Status