Baptism of Homosexual Couple's Child

[Elizabeth502]

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.

There’s absolutely nothing I have said or implied on this thread that could possibly lead to such an illogical conclusion. I have been extremely explicit about how each case has to be judged individually, which is exactly the way pastors approach, incidentally. (Case by case.)

I’m not concerned about thier sins on this thread. I’m concerned about the soul of the child.

So am I, and clearly you don’t understand that, no matter how abundantly I have explained that. You don’t seem to understand the Church’s own teaching regarding instruction in the faith by the baptized child’s parents. That is my concern. We are talking about a particular sub-population of gay couples. Not all struggling gay Catholics attempting to come to terms with their faith but not yet having baptized any child. Not chaste gay couples or individuals who have renounced their previous gay lifestyle. Not individuals that any particular person supposedly merely suspects is engaging in homosexual sex.

I just notice there’s such a harsh judgment on the kids of homosexual couples because of the fact that their guardians are homosexuals.

Get specific when you make such a sweeping statement about who exactly is judging “harshly,” or even judging morally at all. No moral judgment is going on here by me; it’s a practical concern about the efficacy of the baptismal action in an environment which directly contradicts the credibility of the parents to impart the comprehensive teaching of the faith without alienating the child on the one hand (from the love of the parents) and/or confusing the child regarding the faith. The difference between a homosexual and a heterosexual union is visible; that’s what differentiates it from the heterosexual couple’s compliance or noncompliance, and that’s what makes the teaching situation far more problematic.

For those who are confirmed in their homosexual lifestyle and have no intention of disrupting that at the time they approach the pastor with an intent for a child’s baptism, there is on a practical level, a much larger risk: that the supposed ‘saving of the soul of the child’ (which is made possible, not guaranteed, via baptism, which is a sacrament of initiation) will backfire and transform the possible ‘saved soul’ – in such a particular situation I describe, not in every situation, but that category of situation – to an angry soul who rejects the Church and her teachings, and even God, for rejecting the child’s parents’ relationship itself. Better, i.m.o., in such confirmed and rigid cases, that the couple continue to come to Mass, with baby/child, etc., not partaking if they’re living in a confirmed lifestyle, but perhaps participating in other ways in the life of the church until they are ready at some point to renounce their lifestyle and join the Church as fully practicing Catholics and then get the child baptized. When parents are at peace with the Church, the child will have much more chance of that baptism producing fruit to permanent, peaceful membership in the Church. And I do know lots of heterosexual couples living in some level of moral discord (marriage-wise, sexually or reproductively) who choose exactly this path.

 

[ConstantineTG]

There’s absolutely nothing I have said or implied on this thread that could possibly lead to such an illogical conclusion. I have been extremely explicit about how each case has to be judged individually, which is exactly the way pastors approach, incidentally. (Case by case.)

Then why always conclude with your scenario and not mine? We present two different scenarios on the opposite sides of the scale. You never have accepted my scenario and keep pushing for yours pointing to the fact that you only see it one way.

So am I, and clearly you don’t understand that, no matter how abundantly I have explained that. You don’t seem to understand the Church’s own teaching regarding instruction in the faith by the baptized child’s parents. That is my concern. We are talking about a particular sub-population of gay couples. Not all struggling gay Catholics attempting to come to terms with their faith but not yet having baptized any child. Not chaste gay couples or individuals who have renounced their previous gay lifestyle. Not individuals that any particular person supposedly merely suspects is engaging in homosexual sex.

The Church’s own teaching is she does not outright deny children under the care of gay couples any of the Sacraments.

I’m not talking about sub-populations here, but what are the possible scenarios. Sure, I agree with your scenario may be a call to delay but not deny the child baptism. But that is not the only scenario and we have to acknowledge that there are possibilites out there that even living a sinful life, any parent, hetero or homosexual, would desire a better life for their child. It happens.

Get specific when you make such a sweeping statement about who exactly is judging “harshly,” or even judging morally at all. No moral judgment is going on here by me; it’s a practical concern about the efficacy of the baptismal action in an environment which directly contradicts the credibility of the parents to impart the comprehensive teaching of the faith without alienating the child on the one hand (from the love of the parents) and/or confusing the child regarding the faith. The difference between a homosexual and a heterosexual union is visible; that’s what differentiates it from the heterosexual couple’s compliance or noncompliance, and that’s what makes the teaching situation far more problematic.

For those who are confirmed in their homosexual lifestyle and have no intention of disrupting that at the time they approach the pastor with an intent for a child’s baptism, there is on a practical level, a much larger risk: that the supposed ‘saving of the soul of the child’ (which is made possible, not guaranteed, via baptism, which is a sacrament of initiation) will backfire and transform the possible ‘saved soul’ – in such a particular situation I describe, not in every situation, but that category of situation – to an angry soul who rejects the Church and her teachings, and even God, for rejecting the child’s parents’ relationship itself. Better, i.m.o., in such confirmed and rigid cases, that the couple continue to come to Mass, with baby/child, etc., not partaking if they’re living in a confirmed lifestyle, but perhaps participating in other ways in the life of the church until they are ready at some point to renounce their lifestyle and join the Church as fully practicing Catholics and then get the child baptized. When parents are at peace with the Church, the child will have much more chance of that baptism producing fruit to permanent, peaceful membership in the Church. And I do know lots of heterosexual couples living in some level of moral discord (marriage-wise, sexually or reproductively) who choose exactly this path.

Why do you look for the negative instead of hope for the positive? Isn’t Hope a Christian virtue? Why do we think that receiving the graces would make the child rebel against the Church? Do we lack such faith that God will guide the child to Him?

 

[ELMitz]

This discussion has veered this way and that way and has still yet to answer the (my) original question:

What “well founded hope” does a Parish Priest have that a child presented for Baptism will be raised Catholic if the “parents” are unrepentantly, aggressively and publicly living a lifestyle that will-never and can-never change due to the “vows” they have taken.

The fact that we can all think of thousands of other potential scenarios revolving around heterosexual immorality is immaterial to this specific question.

I know many people who were born to single mothers. None of them believe that the Catholic Church’s teaching on extramarital sex is wrong.

I’m not sure that the kids of “married” gay people will ever be able to say the same thing.

“Well Founded Hope…”

 

[Elizabeth502]

This discussion has veered this way and that way and has still yet to answer the (my) original question:

What “well founded hope” does a Parish Priest have that a child presented for Baptism will be raised Catholic if the “parents” are unrepentantly, aggressively and publicly living a lifestyle that will-never and can-never change due to the “vows” they have taken.

The fact that we can all think of thousands of other potential scenarios revolving around heterosexual immorality is immaterial to this specific question.

I know many people who were born to single mothers. None of them believe that the Catholic Church’s teaching on extramarital sex is wrong.

I’m not sure that the kids of “married” gay people will ever be able to say the same thing.

“Well Founded Hope…”

Exactly. That is entire the point. And on my way to a business meeting today, I decided to frame it in the reverse direction, because clearly way too many responders have redirected the issue to one of sin, when sinlessness (or even a state of grace at the time of a baptism) is not required of any parent seeking baptism of a child.

While I happen to agree that the example ELMitz just gave does not qualify for “well founded hope” UNLESS the pastor has even an inkling that the couple is in the process of considering a radical change in their “parenthood” arrangement, I would offer the following alternate way of approaching this:

Assume the obstinately active gay couple, having proclaimed the obstinancy, nevertheless equally fervently declare their intent, as the first and most important teachers of their child, to provide the full scope of Catholic moral teaching to the child, including all the parts uncomfortable and contradictory to their lifestyle: homosexual behavior, cohabitation, and (often) any of the following: utilitarian fornication with the opposite sex, surrogacy, IVF, and A.I.D. But it goes further than that. The couple, if they’ve been sincere and honest with the priest, will be defining their own interrelationship as “disordered,” and their parenting role as forbidden and unacceptable. What an effect on childhood piety toward parents! What kind of moral good is it to set up the child to reject or be confused about the parents, to reject the teachings of the Church with regard to something so essential as marriage, to feel ambivalent about the parents – or the very worst – out of anger and a clear impossibility to resolve two absolutely contradictory situations – bitterly leave the Catholic faith and declare it a fraud and/or a creator of family division?

From a pastoral viewpoint, from a catechetical viewpoint, from the viewpoint of charity (toward the child, and toward the parents), and ultimately (therefore) from the sacramental viewpoint (baptism) I see the indicated probable result as working against the very purposes of the sacrament, in that it will tend to alienate the child from faith, not attract him. This is not a “saved” soul. The sacrament gets you only so far. It’s everything that follows that determines the eventual efficacy of it.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Why do we think that receiving the graces would make the child rebel against the Church?

Asked and answered. (Above.) Apparently you have way less experience with Catholics and ex-Catholics who have completely repudiated the Church, are now campaigning against it, precisely because they have a relative who is gay and wants to “get married,” or is “married,” and such repudiating Catholic cannot resolve the Church’s teaching on this. That’s “why.” Graces do not work merely on their own accord when they are not supported against a tidal wave of opposing forces. But asking a child to view his or her parents in the way that the Church does, remaining utterly faithful to Church teaching, and yet able to feel unconflicted about his parents, is assuming not just full sainthood of that child, but extraordinary human abilities. Doesn’t come under the category “well founded hope.”

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

“well-founded hope”.

Everyone is BOUND by Canon Law (both clergy and laity).
When canon law states there must be well-founded hope a child will be brought up in the Catholic faith that’s what it means.

Do you really think that the USCCB doesn’t know what the canon says? The issue is up in the air since no authority has issued a definitive judgment on the matter. Canon law is not something that every person interprets for him or herself. We let precedent and legitimate authority be our guide.
I am yet to knowingly run across this situation. But if it were to present itself, I’d be in contact with my bishop’s office to see what guidelines or guidance he wished to offer. Denial of baptism is considered a very serious matter and should never be done without being 110% sure that its appropriate.

 

[Judge_Mental]

I don’t think you’re doing an infant a favour by putting the indelible mark of baptism on his soul when he’s in the custody of public, unrepentant, serious sinners, who are addicted to a horrid vice and are willfully at odds with Christian doctrine.

‘Married homosexuals’ is a form of social insanity, never mind the religious implications.

The Church is right. Baptism should be delayed until he can make his own choice or his custodians repent. It’s not a party favour. People should consider its implications.

Don’t confuse niceness with holiness. That’s a Protestant mistake.

 

[PbloPicasso]

I don’t think you’re doing an infant a favour by putting the indelible mark of baptism on his soul when he’s in the custody of public, unrepentant, serious sinners, who are addicted to a horrid vice and are willfully at odds with Christian doctrine.

‘Married homosexuals’ is a form of social insanity, never mind the religious implications.

The Church is right. Baptism should be delayed until he can make his own choice or his custodians repent. It’s not a party favour. People should consider its implications.

Don’t confuse niceness with holiness. That’s a Protestant mistake.

My correctly form conscience tells me that this openly homosexually active “couple” are doing this to increase their presence like in the Episcopalian/Anglican Church scandals that have finally been solidified in the form of “ordained” women and open homosexual same couples in their clergy. Open your eyes folks, unless this is your adopted social agenda…to increase the mortal sin in among God’s people.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Again, Father, thank you for your patient answers and realistic viewpoint. Know that I do appreciate the contradictions in this dilemma, and how (why) it is not cut and dried. My only hope is that any particular bishop’s guidelines on such a hypothetical matter will consider family realities. I do understand that the sacrament is given to the child, not to the adult(s), but again the reality of the matter is that the church, in fact the whole church, benefits by internal unity, and just as importantly, so does the nuclear family.

I was sharing offline with someone that the impulse to baptize a child is obviously fairly strong across generations. Some of it is emotional, some of it cultural, undoubtedly some of it spiritual. But what baptism is not is simply titular membership in a club, no matter how good that association feels and sounds. It is not a sentiment but a sacrament with responsibilities. What we have seen at one parish near me – the one I used to attend – is that the prospect of baptism was a very strong motivator for parents to, shall we say, “correct their ways.” The pastor would make it clear that the (straight) parents had to come in line with essential church teaching – or certainly begin taking those practical steps (such as a canonical marriage, etc.). The pattern was that parents were more attached to the desire for the baptism than to the comfort & habit of their oppositional ways. I wouldn’t say he held some kind of a billyclub over them, or made an actual contingency of this, but his indicating that there was no choice about it (in the long run) did get parents to start behaving more conscientiously – because they wanted those baptisms even “more” (on a personal level) than he did. (I knew a lot of parents in this community, when they just came into the parish, and for the many years I stayed there.)

Just an example…It might not work everywhere.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Again, Father, thank you for your patient answers and realistic viewpoint. Know that I do appreciate the contradictions in this dilemma, and how (why) it is not cut and dried. My only hope is that any particular bishop’s guidelines on such a hypothetical matter will consider family realities. I do understand that the sacrament is given to the child, not to the adult(s), but again the reality of the matter is that the church, in fact the whole church, benefits by internal unity, and just as importantly, so does the nuclear family.

Didn’t Christ say he came not to bring peace but a sword, to pit son against father, dauther against mother? This is that scenario Jesus was talking about. While the Church values unity within the nuclear family, we are also asked to face the reality that if someone in the family opposes our faith then we take the proverbial sword against them and cut ties and follow Chirst instead.

I was sharing offline with someone that the impulse to baptize a child is obviously fairly strong across generations. Some of it is emotional, some of it cultural, undoubtedly some of it spiritual. But what baptism is not is simply titular membership in a club, no matter how good that association feels and sounds. It is not a sentiment but a sacrament with responsibilities. What we have seen at one parish near me – the one I used to attend – is that the prospect of baptism was a very strong motivator for parents to, shall we say, “correct their ways.” The pastor would make it clear that the (straight) parents had to come in line with essential church teaching – or certainly begin taking those practical steps (such as a canonical marriage, etc.). The pattern was that parents were more attached to the desire for the baptism than to the comfort & habit of their oppositional ways. I wouldn’t say he held some kind of a billyclub over them, or made an actual contingency of this, but his indicating that there was no choice about it (in the long run) did get parents to start behaving more conscientiously – because they wanted those baptisms even “more” (on a personal level) than he did. (I knew a lot of parents in this community, when they just came into the parish, and for the many years I stayed there.)

Just an example…It might not work everywhere.

You have to recognize too that the salvation of the soul of the child should not be dependent on the repentance of sins of the parents. Their souls will be judged individually.

 

[thistle]

Do you really think that the USCCB doesn’t know what the canon says? The issue is up in the air since no authority has issued a definitive judgment on the matter. Canon law is not something that every person interprets for him or herself. We let precedent and legitimate authority be our guide.
I am yet to knowingly run across this situation. But if it were to present itself, I’d be in contact with my bishop’s office to see what guidelines or guidance he wished to offer. Denial of baptism is considered a very serious matter and should never be done without being 110% sure that its appropriate.

Canon Law IS definitive. What judgement is required?

Can. 868 §1 For an infant to be baptised lawfully it is required:

1° that the parents, or at least one of them, or the person who lawfully holds their place, give their consent;

**2° that there be a well-founded hope that the child will be brought up in the catholic religion. If such hope is truly lacking, the baptism is, in accordance with the provisions of particular law, to be deferred and the parents advised of the reason for this. **

What is not definitive about that statement?

 

[Elizabeth502]

Didn’t Christ say he came not to bring peace but a sword, to pit son against father, dauther against mother? This is that scenario Jesus was talking about. While the Church values unity within the nuclear family, we are also asked to face the reality that if someone in the family opposes our faith then we take the proverbial sword against them and cut ties and follow Chirst instead.

Again, that’s asking unrealistically for superhuman strength & courage from a child. It is also asking a child to oppose his own parents, which, again, violates charity and violates filial piety, both of which are virtues mandated by the Church and the scriptures.

You have to recognize too that the salvation of the soul of the child should not be dependent on the repentance of sins of the parents. Their souls will be judged individually.

Constantine, why do you keep bringing up this straw man? Are you just being obstinate, or are you trying deliberately to change the subject? The subject is not sin, for the umpteenth time. Otherwise, no infant baptisms of anyone, anywhere, would ever be able to take place. There was only ONE Immaculate Conception. Parental “repentance” has nothing to do with anything I have discussed on this thread, so why would you be posting such a phrase underneath a quote of mine? People can change their behavior without feeling repentance, let alone seeking absolution, and they can do so because of the practical needs of their children, which if they know the meanings of the words “love” and “sacrifice,” they will do. I gave you examples in my parish. Straight couples do in fact make such sacrifices. It’s not up to me, or to you, to figure out whether such conforming couples have done so grudgingly, willing, or “with repentance.” A parental conversion would be another step, which would certainly bring additional graces to the baptism, and make the teaching of that child that much more convincing & grace-filled, but it is not necessary for parents to meet some kind of spiritual bar in order for them merely to stop witnessing to an overtly opposing lifestyle as a couple.

 

[etspiri2sanctus]

Which of these people, will bring the child up in the Catholic Faith?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Which of these people, will bring the child up in the Catholic Faith?

One of my co-catechists grew up in an Atheist family. Who do you think in her family brought her up in the Catholic faith? But here she is, very Catholic and a good teacher of the faith.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Again, that’s asking unrealistically for superhuman strength & courage from a child. It is also asking a child to oppose his own parents, which, again, violates charity and violates filial piety, both of which are virtues mandated by the Church and the scriptures.

You don’t expect that to happen to a 5 year old child. Many Catholics in good Catholic families don’t become well catechized until they are adults.

Constantine, why do you keep bringing up this straw man? Are you just being obstinate, or are you trying deliberately to change the subject? The subject is not sin, for the umpteenth time. Otherwise, no infant baptisms of anyone, anywhere, would ever be able to take place. There was only ONE Immaculate Conception. Parental “repentance” has nothing to do with anything I have discussed on this thread, so why would you be posting such a phrase underneath a quote of mine? People can change their behavior without feeling repentance, let alone seeking absolution, and they can do so because of the practical needs of their children, which if they know the meanings of the words “love” and “sacrifice,” they will do. I gave you examples in my parish. Straight couples do in fact make such sacrifices. It’s not up to me, or to you, to figure out whether such conforming couples have done so grudgingly, willing, or “with repentance.” A parental conversion would be another step, which would certainly bring additional graces to the baptism, and make the teaching of that child that much more convincing & grace-filled, but it is not necessary for parents to meet some kind of spiritual bar in order for them merely to stop witnessing to an overtly opposing lifestyle as a couple.

Let me ask you the question, why do you keep bringing up this stereotype? Why do you think a child in a homosexual “family” has no chance of being brought up in the faith? Faith is like a mustard seed, all you need is to plant that small seed and one day expect a huge tree. It seems you only think that a good, devout Catholic family can bring up a good, devout Catholic child. There have been many good Catholics who came from non-Catholic families. How do you think they became so good Catholics? Fact is, many Catholics who are cradle Catholics turn out worse. Usually the best Catholics are the converts because they had to learn as adults and turn out better catechized. The child of a homosexual couple may find his own way, but being baptized may prove to be that mustard seed of faith he needs. If he finds out that he’s Catholic by baptism, then on his own he may explore his own faith. Or the parents may be good enough to bestow Catholic teaching and education on the child even if they themselves know that they are sinning. You’ll be surprised how many people acknowledge their wrongdoing and want better for their children while thinking of themselves as beyond redemption.

Again, my point here is that the baptism is for the kid and the kid deserves it. If its catechisis that we’re worried about, there are many badly catechized kids out there who come from heterosexual Catholic families. My concern is the soul of the kid.

 

[Judge_Mental]

I think there’s also the wider concern of scandal. Notorious sinners bringing a child to be baptised in public. They will raise the child to be a Catholic while publicly flouting its moral code and making a public mock of the sanctity and meaning of marriage and parenthood? I don’t think so.

As the child has not reached the use of reason, there has to be a well-founded hope that the guardians will guide him safely in the path of righteousness. Otherwise the ceremony is meaningless. Perhaps even spiritually dangerous. You have a child claimed for Christ by the Church but in the custody of public, diabolical sinners. What a mockery. Score 1 for Satan and political correctness.

 

[utah_rose]

I think there’s also the wider concern of scandal. Notorious sinners bringing a child to be baptised in public. They will raise the child to be a Catholic while publicly flouting its moral code and making a public mock of the sanctity and meaning of marriage and parenthood? I don’t think so.

As the child has not reached the use of reason, there has to be a well-founded hope that the guardians will guide him safely in the path of righteousness. Otherwise the ceremony is meaningless. Perhaps even spiritually dangerous. You have a child claimed for Christ by the Church but in the custody of public, diabolical sinners. What a mockery. Score 1 for Satan and political correctness.

I agree. It would create a scandal. It would make it appear that a homosexual union is okay with the Church. Cohabitaing couples are not always known that they are unmarried, and in many cases they do get married after they have a child.

Homosexual couples would probably be bringing up the child (that is if they don’t get “divorced” to ignore the Church’s teachings on marriage or humosexual unions.

You are absolutely right. I imagine Satan would be highly amused, and the seculars out there with their PC attitude would applaud this action. And didn’t Pope Benedict speak out recently on marriage between a man and a woman, not two of the same sex.

 

[Elizabeth502]

You don’t expect that to happen to a 5 year old child. Many Catholics in good Catholic families don’t become well catechized until they are adults.

The catechism begins at an early age, and the language about marriage and parenting and homosexuals begins early as well. In my youth, it began in adolescence. No longer. And the parents (probably for the 4th time here) are the First Teachers of the Child in matters of religion. That is actually the central problem. (As I’ve explained abundantly.)

Let me ask you the question, why do you keep bringing up this stereotype? Why do you think a child in a homosexual “family” has no chance of being brought up in the faith?

Why do you keep misrepresenting what I have said? Because you are, and you have, repeatedly. Anyone reading this can clearly sift through my posts and see abundant different examples (variations) I give of homosexual parenting, but among those who are confirmed in their actively gay cohabitating lifestyle, what the children are being taught is evident from what these “parents” announce they are teaching their children (in direct contradiction to the faith), and in my local region it is additionally evident from what these children share with the press, has been taught to them by their parents. It is only this segment I am talking about because clearly this is the only truly problematic segment. And if were not problematic, you wouldn’t have an identified priest on this forum offering that he will go directly to his bishop if he is confronted with such a situation. It is taught in such households with this confirmed lifestyle that there is no distinction between heterosexual and homosexual marriage, despite what the Church’s teachings are. It’s really, really clear to me that you don’t have much actual exposure to the reality of this movement whatsoever.

It seems you only think that a good, devout Catholic family can bring up a good, devout Catholic child.

Again, this is a complete distortion and misrepresentation of my many collected posts on this thread, which indictate otherwise. When you distort people’s positions, you do not further debate.

Usually the best Catholics are the converts because they had to learn as adults and turn out better catechized.

Wow. Lots of Catholics would disagree with you, because very often this catechesis is rushed and inadequate. But we are not talking about converts from another faith here. This is not the topic of the thread. In my experience the best-informed Catholics are those with the best long-term education in the faith, but that is not the issue that is being discussed. We are talking about the heart of the family. Uniquely, baptism places more responsibility on the parent than any other sacrament does.

The child of a homosexual couple may find his own way, but being baptized may prove to be that mustard seed of faith he needs.

And the entire U.S. “may” convert to Catholicism in the next decade. But it is extremely unlikely. The Canons that have been quoted in are not based on a mere vague and eventual possibility but on a signs of “a well-founded hope.”

 

[ELMitz]

I guess here is where I am on this:

If the Priest were to meet with this hypothetical “couple” seeking baptism for their child and confirm that:

1. They will be raising their child, to the best of their abilities, in The Church – AND –
2. They will not contradict The Church’s teachings on homosexuality in general, extra-marital sex, or same-sex-marriage in the spiritual formation of the child – AND –
3. They are willing to hold the child’s Baptism in private – with invited friends and family of course – so as not to scandalize the Parish faithful – AND –
4. The God Parent(s) chosen for the child also agree with and understand the above,

then I see no reason why the child should not be baptized.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I guess here is where I am on this:

If the Priest were to meet with this hypothetical “couple” seeking baptism for their child and confirm that:

1. They will be raising their child, to the best of their abilities, in The Church – AND –
2. They will not contradict The Church’s teachings on homosexuality in general, extra-marital sex, or same-sex-marriage in the spiritual formation of the child – AND –
3. They are willing to hold the child’s Baptism in private – with invited friends and family of course – so as not to scandalize the Parish faithful – AND –
4. The God Parent(s) chosen for the child also agree with and understand the above,

then I see no reason why the child should not be baptized.

I cannot disagree with this, either! The priest is in the position to determine the ‘well-founded hope’ that is the essential to the canon. Nothing should be assumed, positive or negative, based on individual anecdotal perceptions by those who “see no harm” across the board. There is no “across the board,” and that is entirely the point. So far, I have never seen points 1-4 above being agreed to by any confirmed defiant couple that I am acquainted with in my region, but yes, it’s entirely possible. And the priest knows how to determine that (as best as is humanly discernible) by the kinds of answers such a couple would give to his questions. (And/or, as mentioned earlier, in conference with his own bishop.)