Baptism of child of same sex couple

[Rau]

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?

And there are avenues for baptism besides the traditional ceremony.

The “good standing” of the parents is not the issue to be addressed by the priest.

Taking your reasoning further - why should the unwillingness of parents to seek baptism for their infant be sufficient to deny the infant baptism? And what of the children of good parents who are not Christian? What do you see as appropriate for those children given the accident of their birth to non-Christians? Do you believe they are probably lost? Do you believe that if only we could secretly perform a baptism, they would have a chance at salvation, otherwise denied?

I am very certain that an innocent child dying in the proverbial car crash does not then endure an afterlife of suffering. Beyond that, I do not know.

I can understand the compassion that underpins your concern for the unbaptised infant. But I believe God has the matter in hand.

 

[glendab]

Hello CS.

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?

You first question: You are correct - I’m not putting words such as those you chose in the mouth of the Church, just trying to explain the logic behind the Church’s decision regarding questionable intent for the Baptism of some children whose parents don’t want them to have the graces, not only of Baptism but ALSO the graces of full membership in the Church.

It is not an ERROR on the Priest’s part to withhold Baptism if he feels the acceptable requirements aren’t met. No, the Church is correct in it’s policies regarding the Baptism of infants and small children.

Second question: In some cases where an adult is requesting entrance into the Church but their Baptism is in doubt, the Church provides a CONDITIONAL BAPTISM. They aren’t re-Baptized.

Third question: Some Protestant Baptisms Aren’t valid. Matter and form count. Sometimes the mere intent of the person conducting the Baptism can effect the Sacrament. the Church investigates all Baptisms when someone desires entrance into the Church as a precaution to ensure a valid Baptism.

Last question: Yes, the child IS innocent, but the parents are the ones punishing the child for whatever issues they, the parents, have with the Church that prevents them from obtaining Baptism for their child. They are the ones impeding the Baptism. IF there is ANY doubt that the child WILL NOT BE RAISED CATHOLIC, then Baptism is withheld and the child must grow out of the reach of the parents to obtain it AS WELL AS ALL THE GRACES OF BEING CATHOLIC. All the Church is doing is acknowledging the insincerity of the parents. They usually want a ceremony and a party afterwards and care little about the actual Sacrament and it graces. No, the REAL PUNISHMENT COMES FROM THE PARENTS, not the Church. They are the ones making the decision to keep their child away from the Church and that is very seriously wrong.

Glenda

 

[CatholicSooner]

All in all, i just don’t get people getting worked up if a priest decides to baptize an infant in any situation. I can do no harm to anybody. There are a lot more grave issues to be concerned about.

 

[Galbin]

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.

If this is truly your priest’s stance, I would assume he would be in support of polygamy and incestual relationships as well…

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

I haven’t sat down for a large chat about this nope, but I don’t understand how a priest could state he thinks civil marriages are fine if he thinks having gay relationships is wrong.

The difference between gay relationships and incest/polygamy is that gay relationships are fully consenting and do not hurt anyone (I’ll know you’ll say they hurt the family unit, but they don’t as most people are straight and thus plenty of us around to reproduce). Incest almost always involves rape, and if you watch documentaries on polygamy you will find that most of the wives feel hurt and jealous a lot.

I am shocked though that you put incest and polygamy into the same category as consenting gay relationships.

 

[Galbin]

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.

“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.

I am indeed suggesting that a gay person will indeed desire to have a gay relationship at some point in their lives, **same as the vast majority of heterosexual persons desire to have intimate relationships. **It’ s a pretty basic human desire. As for that poster who is gay but “happily married”, well I doubt he is as happily married as a heterosexual person like myself who is married to the love of her life. I also cannot see him living happily this way forever. And what does his wife think? Did she know he was gay before marrying him?

As for actions defining who we are, the basic definitions of who we are do indeed define our actions. For example, good luck finding someone who has a lust for killing and never kills. Or finding a heterosexual who is not attracted to the opposite sex. That’s what I mean.

I don’t understand why you are against gay relationships, but think civil marriage is fine. I am against abortion for example, and cannot see a time where it ever would be appropriate. So why are civil marriages okay if having a gay relationship is so wrong?

I’m sure we’ll never agree on this issue, despite debating it on a variety of threads.

 

[glendab]

Hello Galbin.

I haven’t sat down for a large chat about this nope, but I don’t understand how a priest could state he thinks civil marriages are fine if he thinks having gay relationships is wrong.

The difference between gay relationships and incest/polygamy is that gay relationships are fully consenting and do not hurt anyone (I’ll know you’ll say they hurt the family unit, but they don’t as most people are straight and thus plenty of us around to reproduce). Incest almost always involves rape, and if you watch documentaries on polygamy you will find that most of the wives feel hurt and jealous a lot.

I am shocked though that you put incest and polygamy into the same category as consenting gay relationships.

I really must disagree respectfully. All three, homosexuality, incest and polygamy are against the moral law. All three lead to Hell. There is no acceptable level of any of them. Homosexual relationship DO hurt people. But then again there are those who think they live on an island and if the corpses aren’t bleeding on the shore think the things they do aren’t hurting anyone. That’s simply a matter of denial - the river that flows round the isle they live on.

While we are told by the CCC that we aren’t supposed to act prejudicially towards those who have homosexual disorders, their acting out on their urges isn’t to be allowed either. So, those who say that we have to put up with their relations aren’t giving all the details.

As for the Church actually allowing the Baptism of the “child” of the gay couple in the OP, that won’t happen. It cannot. The Church cannot condone their behaviors. It really is a non-question.

But since there seems to be mounting governmental pressures towards allowing them all the “rights and privileges” of marriage because the laws of the land say so, there are those who think now is the time to push the envelope to see if we will cave in to the pressures. Nonsense. Haven’t they read anything about our Martyrs and Confessors? Do they think we were a different people then? NOT. And I suppose as more and more governments try to force the gay’s agenda on us we’ll just see how far they expect to push that little red envelope.

Glenda

 

[Rau]

Quote:
*Originally Posted by Rau
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.

“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.*

I am indeed suggesting that a gay person will indeed desire to have a gay relationship at some point in their lives, **same as the vast majority of heterosexual persons desire to have intimate relationships. **It’ s a pretty basic human desire. As for that poster who is gay but “happily married”, well I doubt he is as happily married as a heterosexual person like myself who is married to the love of her life. I also cannot see him living happily this way forever. And what does his wife think? Did she know he was gay before marrying him?

As for actions defining who we are, the basic definitions of who we are do indeed define our actions. For example, good luck finding someone who has a lust for killing and never kills. Or finding a heterosexual who is not attracted to the opposite sex. That’s what I mean.

I don’t understand why you are against gay relationships, but think civil marriage is fine. I am against abortion for example, and cannot see a time where it ever would be appropriate. So why are civil marriages okay if having a gay relationship is so wrong?

I’m sure we’ll never agree on this issue, despite debating it on a variety of threads.

We may not reach agreement, but we should aim to understand each other’s position, and your last post suggests you did not understand mine or at least are mis-stating it.

Undoubtedly, a person experiencing attractions to the same sex may **want **to follow through on those attractions at some stage. But - they are not obligated to do so. If they do so, that is a choice, though the temptation may be strong.

As to the married poster I referred to - I did not label him gay (and I don’t believe he labels himself that way either). He experiences attractions to persons of the same sex, as well as the opposite sex. [His wife knows of his struggles. I understand his marriage is a happy one and to speculate otherwise is inappropriate.] He chooses to reject the same sex attractions. I readily agree that to do so would likely be a bigger struggle if those same sex attractions were exclusive, but that is a matter of degree - the individual cannot somehow become forced by their attractions to indulge in same sex activities, anymore than an unmarried heterosexual can be forced by their attractions to indulge.

I am wary of using the term “gay”, because its scope may be misunderstood. I think it is often used in such a manner as to characterise not just the person’s sexual attractions, but their entire attitude to same-sex relationships. In the common usage, the qualifier “gay” is used to imply a person who not only experiences same sex attractions, but who embraces them. That is not the case for many people experiencing attractions to the same sex (exclusively, or otherwise) - they choose to reject these attractions as unwanted.

In regard to the following statement:

As for actions defining who we are, the basic definitions of who we are do indeed define our actions. For example, good luck finding someone who has a lust for killing and never kills. Or finding a heterosexual who is not attracted to the opposite sex. That’s what I mean.

…this (the bolded) amounts to denying the existence of free will - the ability to choose a course of action despite temptations and desires. [The remainder of your statement is **NOT about actions.] Do we all as sinners have any capacity to refuse an opportunity to sin - or must we do so? Is the Priest or member of a religious order able to live chastely? The alcoholic is driven to drink, but does he have any capacity to resist? The argument you seem to be putting - that those attracted to the same sex must act out accordingly - is just the thinking that requires (or at least prefers) the word “gay” to have the wider definition (“experiencing the attraction, **AND **embracing it”). The inclination and the action are separate things.

If you re-read my prior post, you will see I plainly reject the notion of a “civil gay marriage”. As I said - I have no difficulty with a **civil framework **being established to facilitate 2 people committing to care for each other. Such a relationship is not **intrinsically **sexual, and ought not be confused with Marriage, which is inherently sexual.

PS: We have strayed far from the topic of this thread.

 

[Stillsosola]

Actually two lesbian couples openly attend two different parishes I frequent in the US and they don’t receive sacrements but their children do.

Now question for those opposed to baptism for same sex couple’s children what about single mothers? should thier children be denied baptism because thier mother had premarital sex or was raped? Since the bible condemns women who have sex before marriage and since she did according to your logic she is not a good catholic?

Or what about couples who are married civilly and not in the church? Should thier children be denied baptism since thier marriage isn’t sanctioned by the church?

I was told when I went through the baptismal class all parents go through that ALL childern should be allowed baptism not just properly married parent’s children.

I mean this logic is very un christ like Jesus said Let the little children come to me did he not?

He never said if those children’s parents are gay or not married or not married properly that they are to be shunned.

Who are you to say these children are not being nourished in thier faith? What if his parents are living together chastely? Setting good examples by teaching them about the faith?

In my opinion baptism should be open to all children which in my parish that i attend in both the US which is the diocese of orlando and in mexico which is the diocese of mexico city baptism is allowed to all kids from all home situations not just “ideal” parents.

 

[Rau]

Actually two lesbian couples openly attend two different parishes I frequent in the US and they don’t receive sacrements but their children do.

Now question for those opposed to baptism for same sex couple’s children what about single mothers? should thier children be denied baptism because thier mother had premarital sex or was raped? Since the bible condemns women who have sex before marriage and since she did according to your logic she is not a good catholic?

Or what about couples who are married civilly and not in the church? Should thier children be denied baptism since thier marriage isn’t sanctioned by the church?

I was told when I went through the baptismal class all parents go through that ALL childern should be allowed baptism not just properly married parent’s children.

I mean this logic is very un christ like Jesus said Let the little children come to me did he not?

He never said if those children’s parents are gay or not married or not married properly that they are to be shunned.

Who are you to say these children are not being nourished in thier faith? What if his parents are living together chastely? Setting good examples by teaching them about the faith?

In my opinion baptism should be open to all children which in my parish that i attend in both the US which is the diocese of orlando and in mexico which is the diocese of mexico city baptism is allowed to all kids from all home situations not just “ideal” parents.

You’ve not directed your post to any particular poster(s), but perhaps you may be assuming facts not in evidence? Have posters actually said "the parents are doing wrong therefore no baptism for the infant?"

The status of parents is not a determining factor. The Church requires the **priest **to assess the likelihood of the infant being brought up in the faith. That’s all. And certainly I agree with you that no arm-chair observer on this forum is well-placed to make that call from this distance.

 

[CatholicSooner]

I haven’t sat down for a large chat about this nope, but I don’t understand how a priest could state he thinks civil marriages are fine if he thinks having gay relationships is wrong.

The difference between gay relationships and incest/polygamy is that gay relationships are fully consenting and do not hurt anyone (I’ll know you’ll say they hurt the family unit, but they don’t as most people are straight and thus plenty of us around to reproduce). Incest almost always involves rape, and if you watch documentaries on polygamy you will find that most of the wives feel hurt and jealous a lot.

I am shocked though that you put incest and polygamy into the same category as consenting gay relationships.

Well of course to compare the three they would need to be consenting. But there is no difference between consenting relationships of homosexualism, incest, and polygamy in regards to the discussion. If one supports one they should support all.

As for the civil marriage, it is simply a contract that allows for tax benefits and a few other benefits.

 

[CatholicSooner]

I don’t understand why you are against gay relationships, but think civil marriage is fine. I am against abortion for example, and cannot see a time where it ever would be appropriate. So why are civil marriages okay if having a gay relationship is so wrong?

By being ok with civil marriages, you are not supporting the act of homosexual behavior. You are simply approving that all people should be allowed the benefits of a contractual agreement that marriage provides.

I don’t really feel like your abortion analogy is a good representation. It’s off topic but the only time I see “abortion” as appropriate is in the situation where the mother and the fetus will both die if the pregnancy isn’t aborted.

Hello Galbin.

As for the Church actually allowing the Baptism of the “child” of the gay couple in the OP, that won’t happen. It cannot. The Church cannot condone their behaviors. It really is a non-question.

I’m sorry but you are wrong on this in a couple instances. One it has happened. Two, It can happen. Three, baptizing a child isn’t condoning their relationship anymore than condoning premarital sex that results in a bastard child that needs baptism.

 

[Rau]

By being ok with civil marriages, you are not supporting the act of homosexual behavior. You are simply approving that all people should be allowed the benefits of a contractual agreement that marriage proved.

By supporting gay civil marriages, you are supporting homosexual relationships as being equally deserving of State accommodation for the same reasons that Marriage earns State accommodation.

Civil “marriage” is a real marriage understood essentially everywhere, including by the Church, as a sexual union. Thinking about your married non-catholic friends, how many of them went into marriage to secure some contractual benefits? Probably none - the context for their marriage was their love, their intention to join in a sexual union and in most cases an intention to form a family. This is what the State’s civil marriage law assumes, and it is the basis of legal obligations and privileges that the State grants. If you are OK with civil gay marriage, then you OK.with these ideas being equally applicable to a same sex couple.

Note also that gay marriage advocates themselves argue that these benefits ought to attach to gay relationship, not simply to arbitrary relationships between people as your “contractual” description of them would imply. They further argue for the right to form families including the procuring of babies via surrogates and all,that flows from that. (We are well past a debate over some benefits.)

The issue with gay civil marriage is not the commitment of 2 people to care for each and the seeking of State accommodation to provide for that. 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. If we need a law to provide for couples (or more general groupings) to commit to share a home and other assets and care for each other, then let us create one. But there is nothing intrinsically sexual in such an arrangement, there is nothing “marital” in such an arrangement, and it should not be confused with “Marriage”.

 

[CatholicSooner]

By supporting gay civil marriages, you are supporting homosexual relationships as being equally deserving of State accommodation for the same reasons that Marriage earns State accommodation.

Civil “marriage” is a real marriage understood essentially everywhere, including by the Church, as a sexual union. Thinking about your married non-catholic friends, how many of them went into marriage to secure some contractual benefits? Probably none - the context for their marriage was their love, their intention to join in a sexual union and in most cases an intention to form a family. This is what the State’s civil marriage law assumes, and it is the basis of legal obligations and privileges that the State grants. If you are OK with civil gay marriage, then you OK.with these ideas being equally applicable to a same sex couple.

Note also that gay marriage advocates themselves argue that these benefits ought to attach to gay relationship, not simply to arbitrary relationships between people as your “contractual” description of them would imply. They further argue for the right to form families including the procuring of babies via surrogates and all,that flows from that. (We are well past a debate over some benefits.)

The issue with gay civil marriage is not the commitment of 2 people to care for each and the seeking of State accommodation to provide for that. 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. If we need a law to provide for couples (or more general groupings) to commit to share a home and other assets and care for each other, then let us create one. But there is nothing intrinsically sexual in such an arrangement, there is nothing “marital” in such an arrangement, and it should not be confused with “Marriage”.

I’m sorry but you are thinking about this too hard.

 

[CatholicSooner]

I think a lot of people could get on board their being a contractual union between two parties and a religious marriage

 

[Rau]

I think a lot of people could get on board their being a contractual union between two parties and a religious marriage

So all the marriages not conducted in a catholic(?) church are to be understood as simply contractual deals, an arrangement for commercial and legal convenience? Not sexual unions, not the basis of family formation? The Church must be wrong to recognise these contractual arrangements as **valid marriages **then?

You say I over think the subject. Well, I don’t know how else to form views on something, other than thinking it through. I am certainly at a loss to understand how you have formed yours, and would be pleased if you’d like to elaborate, or tell me where you think I have erred in my reasoning.

 

[CatholicSooner]

So all the marriages not conducted in a catholic(?) church are to be understood as simply contractual deals, an arrangement for commercial and legal convenience? Not sexual unions, not the basis of family formation?

I never once said that.

Look, whether it is right or wrong. People are having sex way before they get married. If marriage was simply about love and sex, nobody would be getting married nowadays. Homosexuals are pretty vocal about wanting equal rights under the law, not wanting marriage so they can have sex.

IMO a government should not be in the marriage business. It should be a religious institution and the goverment should have civil unions.

 

[Galbin]

Well of course to compare the three they would need to be consenting. But there is no difference between consenting relationships of homosexualism, incest, and polygamy in regards to the discussion. If one supports one they should support all.

As for the civil marriage, it is simply a contract that allows for tax benefits and a few other benefits.

Incest is rarely consenting. It is almost always rape. So that’s not a valid comparison.

Again, if you think gay relationships are so wrong, why would you consent to them being allowed any legal relationship status? I think paedophelia is wrong, so I would never support the marriage of a 30 year old to a 12 year old, no matter whether the marriage were legal or religious. So I’m still not understanding your POV on this.

 

[CatholicSooner]

Incest is rarely consenting. It is almost always rape. So that’s not a valid comparison.

Again, we are talking about consenting relationships. If you don’t think there are consentual incest cases in the world or the US you are kidding yourself. Anyways it’s a hypothetical so yes it is valid.

Again, if you think gay relationships are so wrong, why would you consent to them being allowed any legal relationship status?

Because it isn’t my business and has no affect on me. If two human beings love each other, it isn’t up to me to say they can’t be together outside of the church. Again, in the US, we have the separation of church and state. Religion shouldn’t come into play in regards to unions.

I think paedophelia is wrong, so I would never support the marriage of a 30 year old to a 12 year old, no matter whether the marriage were legal or religious. So I’m still not understanding your POV on this.

please read your last post. THIS is not a valid comparison b/c of the lack of consent.

 

[marywarfield]

No one has a RIGHT to salvation or baptism including
infants. It was a free gift from God and not your right.
We are talking about the Catholic Church here not the
U.S.Congress and I for one, am getting tired of the sacraments
being used for political purposes.

 

[CatholicSooner]

No one has a RIGHT to salvation or baptism including
infants. It was a free gift from God and not your right.
We are talking about the Catholic Church here not the
U.S.Congress and I for one, am getting tired of the sacraments
being used for political purposes.

You are correct, it is a gift from God. I find it sad that this gift would be with held from a child due to the mistakes of a parent.