Why are you posting a distraction from the question? It is not helpful to point out that there are marginal Catholics over there. The question is about homosexual couples. Trying to make some equivalent argument with heterosexual Catholics does not apply.
No, actually, I was responding to your own blanket assertion, based on your experience in the Philippines. The Philippines may or may not be reflective of the U.S., but one key difference between the U.S. and the Phillippines is the average level of education. In any case, you stated a generality, which does not apply. I failed to enumerate other exceptions to your generality (regarding Catholic parents who deviate in lifestyle – not in SIN – from the standards, teachings of the Church) – numerous exceptions which contradict your umbrella generality.
I have never visited the Philippines, although I do have many Filipino acquaintances. I don’t see the examples you enumerate as any more indicative of a casual attitude about contraception than what exists in the modern world at large. And as such, Filipinos are not immune to such predominant secular influences.
Quite the opposite. I’m reporting knowledge, not “stereotypes.” Inside knowledge. I live in a heavily, heavily gay area which is activist in nature. I have explained in previous threads on CAF two things (1) sexually active gay couples who have no intention of halting their sexual behavior have stopped attending parishes where that behavior has clearly been re-explained by the local priests/bishop as inconsistent with reception of sacraments; (2) by contrast, preivously sexually active gays have joined parishes with the express purpose of staying chaste (and have often so notified the pastor, particularly if said parishioner was known by that pastor previously to be active); (3) there is a subset of sexually active gay couples who were either born Catholic or at some point became Catholic, who have no intention of altering their sexual lifestyle – not living as brother & sister, not living apart, etc. Those are the gay couples I refer to when I say that this set is problematic. They are openly defiant, and most often do not acquire their children through adoption but through reproductive technologies forbidden by the RCC, combined with utilitarian fornication to achieve these conceptions. So they are defiant on multiple fronts to begin with, and “write their own rules” when it comes to reception of the sacraments. I see it constantly. The issue is not “sin.” The issue is sacraments. If it became clear that a particular couple, or couples, had little regard for at least two sacraments (marriage and Eucharist), I’m not sure how a pastor would have a “well-founded hope” that the Catholicism the child was being exposed to would even vaguely resemble standard Catholicism.
But a country is a better sample of a society than one person’s personal experience, don’t you think?
Growing up there and being part of the culture, I can verify my claims. The culture itself still wears a mask of conservativeness because that is our culture. A sexually active single woman in her late 20s will never admit that she’s no longer a virgin anymore. I’m not saying there are no more virgins until they get married, I’m just saying that the culture itself has become liberated even though we would never admit it.
And my experience is the opposite. Perhaps its driven by culture. As Filipinos in the Philippines, the Catholic Church is intertwined with culture. Even given that there has been an explosion of Protestant denominations in the last decade, many more would stay in Church for various reasons, including pressure from parents, or just because its the cultural thing to do (go to Mass). I am aware of those who leave the Church because they cannot accept her teachings, but there are also who stay in the Church despite living an opposing lifestyle. And thats my point, how can we judge if these gay couple is one or the other? Are they who keep the faith and hoping and praying they will either be converted or accepted? Or are they the rebellious one who would openly go against the Church? There’s two flavors here, we should recognize that. The problem with this thread is many people are assuming the gay couple would be the ones you describe without realizing that there are there who want to keep the faith despite living a sinful life.
I agree with you Elizabeth. This sounds like a “liberal” pastor to me. Instead of all of the priests agreeing with Canon Law, they are making up their own rules. Ours for instance, believes that Baptism can “wait” till they’re about 4. I guess he has never considered a “crib death” or and accident that could happen when he or she is a baby. Also, he will baptize when the parents haven’t been married in the Church.
I think you people are missing the point. The issue here is about the child receiving the baptism, not the people they are in the care of. If you think a homosexual union is a major disorder that would affect the moral upbringing of a child, then we also shouldn’t baptize children of any irregular marriage which included divorced and remarried without a Canonical annulment, unmarried parents, children born out of affairs, etc. What of a woman who is unmarried and has 4 children with 4 different men? Wouldn’t it change the moral outlook of the kids when they grow up and find out they have different biological fathers?
That’s a contradiction. You cannot keep the faith while rejecting a teaching of the Church. Active gays are not only in state of mortal sin (which many of us are with other sins), they reject the Church teaching on homosexuality. That’s heresy.
Although I don’t agree with all your points, you are correct with regard to the influence of culture on religion – and not just in the Philippines; Catholicism is intertwined with local and national culture just about everywhere that I can think of at the moment. Mexican Catholicism is experienced very differently than American, Italian still differently, etc., and those cultural influences are difficult to segregate from instruction in the faith and the presumption that the baptized are supposedly following the faith personally and instructing/forming their children accurately. Nevertheless, we really are talking here, I assume, about Catholics who despite their heritage, can be called American Catholics, however hyphenated that is. I’m not really referring to baptisms in the Philippines (or in Africa, the various countries of which often have unique cultural assumptions and challenges for a Catholic priest).
) “father”, or both “mother.” There is something about the undifferentiated nature of the gender component that puts the psychological barrier against separation (i.e., repudiation of the contradicting lifestyle) that much more difficult.Constantine, although I respect your opinion it is the Church that teaches that “a homosexual union is a major disorder” and you can find that in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Not quite, thats why there are the so-called Cafeteria Catholics today. I’d rather have Cafeteria Catholics who has the opportunity to be better catechized in the Catholic Church than those “on-fire for the Lord” who has jump shipped to Evangelical or Pentecostal circles.
I have never refuted that point. I agree with it 100%. I have clarified time and again on this thread that I am in no way supportive of any sort of homosexual union. What I am defending here is the child, not the homosexual couple.
Then that is a red flag right there. But again this is playing already into stereotypes. We think that just because a handful of homosexuals are this way, then all must be this way. Trust me, I’ve known people who live sinful lives but want good upbringing to their children. Their viewpoint in life is that they are beyond salvation and want their kids to have a better life than themselves. The Church only asks for the hope that the child will be raised Catholic. Given this mentality, doesn’t it satisfy that hope?
True, but wouldn’t you rather someone be granted the grace of baptism? Anyone who sins is devoid of grace. If we don’t receive graces through the Sacraments, we don’t receive the grace to repent. Anyone who goes to Confession is seen as someone who had enough grace within themselves to acknowledge sin and repent.
I really hate to break this to you Constantine, but gay “couples” who are cohabitating (with children in household) and receiving Communion (which they do in certain parishes) are not confessing that extremely serious sin and “repenting” for it. They do not acknowledge that their coupling is even sin. I would know because they rather celebrate that at a couple of parishes in my vicinity, and refuse publicly to accept the Church’s teaching on sexuality and marriage. Now, I don’t know, you don’t know, utah_rose doesn’t know, whether simply being in the presence of other communicants, in the presence of Our Lord, in a Catholic Church at a Catholic Mass, will eventually by itself shock them into some epiphany that they need in fact to repent. But so far, they are not repenting, and their lack of repentance is being confirmed by their parish priests continually.
And what about the co-habitating “straight couple”, who are not married (or worse yet, have the huge “church wedding” after the fact, with their children as flower girls and ring-bearers), practice artifical birth control, see nothing wrong with their actions, never go to confession and still present themselves for the Eucharist?
) Yet, no where, not in my own Diocese, in my own Parish or on any of these threads have I seen anyone come down as hard on any of this behavior as I have seem people come down the on “homosexual couples”.We are all sinners, and it is not up to any of us to decide who can or cannot be granted the Sacraments. That is between the person, their priest and God
As a debater, I find it very sad, and not helpful for debate, when people refuse to read the previous posts. All of your rhetorical questions have been answered. There is no inappropriate judging here on my part, no discussion of SIN (but rather lifestyle), no “presumption” (a theologically inappropriate word – that is not the Sin of Presumption, which is deliberate sin with the casual assumption of future forgiveness).
When they tell us what’s going on, we do know. And gay cohabitating couples do tell us, not in graphic detail, but in substance: “We have an actively gay relationship, but we want to be a part of the church in every other way, and we want to have our child/children baptized.”
As I said in my post, I was not directing my comments specifically to you.
Then you have misunderstood what I specifically have wrote, and/or you yourself are engaging not in “presumption” but in rash judgment. My own concerns have nothing to do with the sinfulness of all of us parents seeking baptism for our children. (I will note, however, that our late pastor, beloved as he was and a very holy man, did remind all couples seeking infant (or child) baptisms, that when they were not living according to the marriage laws of the church, they will need to begin doing that immediately, as role models for these new young members.) I’m not trying to play pastor; I hate it when people do that. I’m relaying a concern for the child’s accurate instruction in the faith, not whether or not their parents are compliant, even though in this case those two things are related because (unlike with contraception, for example), a homosexual couple is on its face a direct denial of Catholic Church teaching.
Third time now: They share that with the community. I have a friend who is a lesbian and active in the LGBT group at a parish near me, who has shared her active lifestyle with me, for example. She, yes, goes to Communion, is a Eucharistic minister, etc. She is unapologetic about it. I don’t “judge” her. My non-sexual sins may be worse than her sexual sins, in the eyes of God, for all I know. This is not a moral comparison issue. It’s an instructional issue, because of parents being the first teachers of the faith. She is only one of many examples, and yes, she used to be “the norm” at this parish, which no longer has actively gay couples going up to Communion since the new bishop has taken office. She told me herself that she was the norm. I assumed nothing, and again, I assume nothing until people tell me.Just how exactly do you "know" that 2 openly gay people, who live together are also having sex?
Of course it can’t be ruled out. That’s why I still maintain you haven’t read the thread carefully, or you have chosen to read and retain what you wish to, and have conveniently overlooked the discussion about counsel to the parents of the child being baptized, when, and only when, it is apparent that there is an openly confirmed lifestyle which compromises the teaching of the child by its very existence, or (equally problematic, i.m.o.) invites disunity to the family unit.
Not by me there’s not. I don’t presume the sins of others unless and until they choose to share those with me. And if/when they do, I would doubt that their sins could be worse than mine. The person “presuming” (“rash judging” – please use the correct theological termso yes, IMHO, there is ***A LOT ***of presumption on this thread!!
, even though I know what you mean) is perhaps yourself? Modifying my statement: a visible denial, is what I meant. We parents may be doing lots of things directly against church teaching that are not visible to a child who will be or has been baptized, and thus not an ongoing, permanent problem which has no resolution except for the resolution which demands the dismantling of the family unit, which is clearly not optimal for the child – emotionally or spiritually.
There problem here is that while your observation of the beliefs and faith practices of homosexuals is acurate, you wrongly assume that every homosexual person on the planet would do the same exact thing. I personally know gays who go to church and pray and know that what they do and who they are is not accepted by Church teaching. Many of these people are confused.
So its okay to baptize children of couples who never reveal that they are not married, divorced and remarried without annulment, a single mom with multiple kids from different men without getting married nor anyone of them passing away, or a man who has fathered a child among different women, also all alive and well and without marriage? Just because the sin is hidden from our view? Thats hypocritical. God sees in secret, we are being superficial if we allow these and not the homosexual couple just because other people don’t know. God knows and its the same problem. And again the issue at hand is not the sins of the parents or guardians, its the soul of the child. Every child deserves the grace of God.