Baptism of child of same sex couple

[marywarfield]

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.

Unless the parents have every intention of raising
their child Catholic, they do a great disservice to that
child in baptizing the child Catholic. Reality is it means that
child is irrevocably a member of the Church who will
not have any opportunity to do anything but sin against
their own faith UNLESS there is huge intervention on
the part of the Spirit.
It’s the same reason priests don’t want Catholic grandparents
baptizing the children of unwilling parents. It is a disservice
to the CHILD.

More than that when it is the child of an actively
gay couple the child is put in an untenable position:
rejecting their own parent’s lifestyle and being aware the
parental relationship is mortally sinful or worse rejecting
the Church altogether.

People with the view that every child must be Baptised
without regard to the situation have an immature
attitude toward that sacrament.
JMO.

 

[CatholicSooner]

Unless the parents have every intention of raising
their child Catholic, they do a great disservice to that
child in baptizing the child Catholic. Reality is it means that
child is irrevocably a member of the Church who will
not have any opportunity to do anything but sin against
their own faith UNLESS there is huge intervention on
the part of the Spirit.
It’s the same reason priests don’t want Catholic grandparents
baptizing the children of unwilling parents. It is a disservice
to the CHILD.

More than that when it is the child of an actively
gay couple the child is put in an untenable position:
rejecting their own parent’s lifestyle and being aware the
parental relationship is mortally sinful or worse rejecting
the Church altogether.

People with the view that every child must be Baptised
without regard to the situation have an immature
attitude toward that sacrament.
JMO.

I get what you are saying but again, I think people get bogged down in the letter of the law too often.

So again I present the question: why is it a disservice? If you had a choice between a child sinning whether he was baptized or not, would you not find it better for them to be baptized? What if the presence of the holy spirit by His sactifying grace changes the child in unknown ways? The presence of GOD in a child is never a bad thing! We should want that presence to live in every child.

This is the last I will say on this topic because it is obvious that I am in the minority here. Just please, stop every once in a while and realize that not everything in black and white and that the presence of God can change lives. An innocent person should never be denied that.

 

[JimG]

Unless the parents have every intention of raising
their child Catholic, they do a great disservice to that
child in baptizing the child Catholic. Reality is it means that
child is irrevocably a member of the Church who will
not have any opportunity to do anything but sin against
their own faith UNLESS there is huge intervention on
the part of the Spirit.
It’s the same reason priests don’t want Catholic grandparents
baptizing the children of unwilling parents. It is a disservice
to the CHILD.

More than that when it is the child of an actively
gay couple the child is put in an untenable position:
rejecting their own parent’s lifestyle and being aware the
parental relationship is mortally sinful or worse rejecting
the Church altogether.

People with the view that every child must be Baptised
without regard to the situation have an immature
attitude toward that sacrament.
JMO.

What you say here makes a lot of sense. What I find astonishing is that parents who themselves reject the teachings of the Church and intend to continue doing so, and who intend never to raise their child in the Catholic Faith, would wish to have their child Baptized. Why? Why would they seek to have the child join a Church which they reject in their own lives?

 

[marywarfield]

What you say here makes a lot of sense. What I find astonishing is that parents who themselves reject the teachings of the Church and intend to continue doing so, and who intend never to raise their child in the Catholic Faith, would wish to have their child Baptized. Why? Why would they seek to have the child join a Church which they reject in their own lives?

Really? Politics. For the same reason gay couples are
suing the Anglicans in England for refusing the
Sacrament of Marriage.

 

[CatholicSooner]

For the same reason gay couples are
suing the Anglicans in England for refusing the
Sacrament of Marriage.

Now this is what I am afraid will happen in the US. It is only a matter of time before the government tries to mandate that churches marry same sex couples

 

[JimG]

Really? Politics. For the same reason gay couples are
suing the Anglicans in England for refusing the
Sacrament of Marriage.

I see. So it’s really just bad intentions–trying to put a priest in a difficult spot, or perhaps lay the groundwork for a lawsuit.

 

[Rau]

I see. So it’s really just bad intentions–trying to put a priest in a difficult spot, or perhaps lay the groundwork for a lawsuit.

Perhaps a tiny minority seek baptism for this reason. More common would be (1). The cafeteria catholic who quite likes the idea of baptism to acquire the catholic badge, but has a “more sophisticated” take on other aspects of the Faith; and (2) the socialite, who perceives baptism as a social event and an opportunity to give ther child a fist big “outing”; and (3) momentum - it’s expected in the family.

Of course, many parents may acknowledge their own weaknesses but simply be trying to do what they can for their child.

 

[Rau]

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.

I agree you did not say that (that non-church marriages are not real marriages),** but it flows from how you characterised civil marriage** as a mere contractual arrangement.

I understand your last paragraph - it seems to be an elegant approach. But do you really want the State to abandon its view that families are the core of society, the building blocks of society, and that their special position is to be eliminated and replaced by arbitrary groupings of individuals bound together by mere “contractual relationships?” Can families only be forged in a Church? Would this not leave many good people, but not church-going, out in the cold?

 

[Galbin]

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.

Yes, there are some “consensual” incestuous relationships. However, the vast majority of incestuous relationships are absolutely not consensual. Secondly, many of the ones that purport to be really aren’t. Whereas the vast majority of gay relationships are consenting.

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.

Yes, but if you think gay marriage is so wrong, why would you vote it in? Separation of church and state or not. The Catholic Church is against abortion, but even if they weren’t I would still never vote for it.

 

[Galbin]

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. 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.

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 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.

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. .

Somehow I missed this post. Sorry about that, Rau.

Unfortunately, I do understand your position. I do indeed know the difference between desire and action. The difference is that I do not think having a same sex desire is wrong; therefore I don’t see acting on it as wrong. Of course, a person will want to follow through on their same-sex attraction, same as you would likely want to follow through on your opposite sex attraction. Few people want to spend their whole lives alone without any type of sexual contact (and I am not just talking about sex, but even kissing would be offensive to you, I imagine), so I don’t see why gay people should have to spend their lives alone. The idea that gay ppl would choose to live together with someone they are in love with and never be sexual with them is completely unrealistic. I wouldn’t expect to live with a man I was in love with and expect there to be nothing sexual happening either. Hence why I didn’t go around living with my ex boyfriends. And I find the use of the term “indulge” offensive, as if they were treating themselves to a 7 course meal or something. If expressing your sexuality with someone you are in love with is indulging, then I must be indulging too whenever I sleep with my husband.

As for the married poster, he isn’t gay then, he is bi-sexual. That is definitely different, as I am sure he is in love with his wife. He just has to avoid temptation, as all of us married folks do. Cheating is cheating, whether it’s a man or a woman, but at least his wife knows he is actually attracted to her gender. And he still has that fundamental attraction to her, which IMO is vital in a marriage.

With regards to the term gay, I don’t like the use the term homosexual much, as it has negative connotations. For example, I don’t anyone who uses the term IRL, and most people who use the term are generally against people being homosexual. So I am deliberately using the word gay for a reason. Again, I don’t see anything wrong with embracing one’s sexuality. I have embraced my straightness.

The difference between a gay person and a priest is vast. Firstly, there are many instances of priests who are not able to keep chaste, as we are all unfortunately aware. Secondly, the priests offer up their chastity in return for tremendous spiritual reward, both in this life and the next. Gay people living without a partner for their whole lives don’t get the same spiritual benefits in this life. Again bearing in mind that the vast majority of people would find it impossible to live with someone they are in love with, so gay ppl who want to be chaste will need to live alone. And even if sex were not a big part of the relationship (which it often isn’t for even straight couples, particularly as they get older), they would still be tempted to kiss and maybe have sexual relations occasionally. Yet if they saw that as a sin, they wouldn’t be able to live with even that small amount of temptation at all. You also need to be aware that most gay people do not belong to religions that see being gay as wrong. Many Protestant Churches for example do not see same sex relationship as being wrong.

Why do you support a civil framework for gay couples though? If you find gay relationships to be wrong, why would you support them in any way? After all, the only gay couples who would never be sexual with one another would be the ones who believe that being gay is wrong, and such ppl would either resign themselves to being alone or else try to form a heterosexual relationship.

 

[Rau]

Somehow I missed this post. Sorry about that, Rau.

Unfortunately, I do understand your position. I do indeed know the difference between desire and action. The difference is that I do not think having a same sex desire is wrong; therefore I don’t see acting on it as wrong. Of course, a person will want to follow through on their same-sex attraction, same as you would likely want to follow through on your opposite sex attraction. Few people want to spend their whole lives alone without any type of sexual contact (and I am not just talking about sex, but even kissing would be offensive to you, I imagine), so I don’t see why gay people should have to spend their lives alone. The idea that gay ppl would choose to live together with someone they are in love with and never be sexual with them is completely unrealistic. I wouldn’t expect to live with a man I was in love with and expect there to be nothing sexual happening either. Hence why I didn’t go around living with my ex boyfriends. And I find the use of the term “indulge” offensive, as if they were treating themselves to a 7 course meal or something. If expressing your sexuality with someone you are in love with is indulging, then I must be indulging too whenever I sleep with my husband.
…

With regards to the term gay, I don’t like the use the term homosexual much, as it has negative connotations. For example, I don’t anyone who uses the term IRL, and most people who use the term are generally against people being homosexual. So I am deliberately using the word gay for a reason. Again, I don’t see anything wrong with embracing one’s sexuality. …

Why do you support a civil framework for gay couples though? If you find gay relationships to be wrong, why would you support them in any way? After all, the only gay couples who would never be sexual with one another would be the ones who believe that being gay is wrong, and such ppl would either resign themselves to being alone or else try to form a heterosexual relationship.

Galbin, a same sex desire is not wrong - on that we agree. It is disordered (by virtue of the incompatibility of the bodies of the participants with the act they are attempting) but that is just an objective characterisation, not a moral one. In the same way, a desire to masturbate is not wrong. An carnal desire felt towards a neighbour’s wife is not wrong. [Wrong as in ‘sinful’]. Desires come and go in their own way and we are only responsible for how we handle them. If we luxuriate on those desires, we do wrong. If we indulge those desires, we do wrong.

I struggle to see the substance in your argument beyond “if you want something it is ok to have it”. You have compassion for those experiencing SSA, as do I, and you can’t deny them the comfort of a sexual relationship. But I think there is a circle in your argument, “the sex is not wrong because I want it, and wanting it is not wrong because the sex is not wrong”. You are failing to separate want from action I believe, and while you are right that the desire is not wrong, you express the ‘wrong’ reason for that!

I don’t “support” civil arrangements of the type I described, I’m just totally neutral on them. If too elderly sisters can benefit from such an arrangement as they care for each other, well and good. If two men wish to commit to care for each other and share assets and be treated under law as each other’s next of kin, fine too. So long as the State does not confuse that arrangement with Marriage, or by its actions endorse those arrangements as intrinsically sexual, I have no grounds to take issue.