Baptism of Homosexual Couple's Child

[Newbie2]

It is not the **parents **who receive the sacrament, it is the child. Let us not forget that we are talking about baptismal regeneration, incorporation into the Body of Christ, removal of original sin, and giving of sacramental grace.

The Church teaches the **necessity **of baptism for salvation. The Church teaches that parents have a **duty **to bring their children forward for baptism as soon as possible. The Church teaches that baptism is the gateway to all other Sacraments.

To deny baptism, or really to delay it, the priest has to have good reason. If there is no foundation to believe that the child will be brought to church, given religious instruction, and assisted in fulfilling the responsibilities that baptism brings under Canon Law then baptism should be delayed until such time as the priest does believe the child will be. If there is evidence the child will be given these opportunities, then the child should be baptized.

So, ultimately it is a pastoral decision based on what hope there is for the **child **to have access to the practice of the faith. This can be done in spite of whatever public sin the parents may be committing if the priest believes the child will be able to practice the faith-- remarried after divorce, cohabitation, fornication, and even same-sex relationships.

Denying baptism is very serious in light of the Church’s teaching on its **necessity **for salvation. It should rarely be refused.

Took the words right out of my mouth (most of them, anyway).

Secondly, It has to be assumed that the child cannot be raised in the catholic faith if the parent - and its same sex partner - are living in a sinful relationship and persisting in that, because they would be most likely to pass to the child the belief that that sinful activity was not sinful. I don’t mean raising the child as a presumed homosexual, but raising the child in the belief that homosexuality is not sinful. That has to add up to a less than well founded belief that the child will be properly raised in the faith.

Finally, it is not possible for a practising homosexual to be active and participating in all ways other than regarding the church’s teaching on homosexuality, because they would be in a state of persistent mortal sin. So for example, they would not be able to receive communion or go to confession ( unless they were willing to stop it). After all, we are talking here about one of the four sins crying to heaven for vengeance.

I think that would extend to children of unmarried couples, too - they would be teaching the child that it is not a sin to have sex and children outside of marriage, unless and until they do marry and show genuine repentance.

Single mothers - that should be looked at per individual case. For a mother whose husband has left without consent who has acted in good faith throughout, I would think that it is fine to baptise the child, or for a mother or father who has demonstrated true repentance of unmarried sex.
However, if the attitude of having sexual partners outside of marriage is persistent, then no, because the child again will most likely be raised with that sinful attitude.

Alhough I have never engaged in any homosexual activity myself, I have been no saint in the past myself with regard to sex, but to avoid hypocrisy I am pointing out what I understand the church’s position would be, rather than using this to portray myself as holier than thou in some way.

Hmmmm…to deny a child baptism because of the sins of the parents…dangerous precedent. Let’s say the man of a heterosexual Catholic married couple has an issue with masturbation; something serious, but not known to the community. Should he refuse to have his baby baptized until he “has it under control” or “kicks” the masturbation addiction? What if he is never able to kick it? How does this square with your position?

 

[1ke]

On the other hand lets say both parents of a child are Catholic but they have fallen away. They have a child and want it baptised in the Catholic Church but make it clear they do not intend to bring the child up in the Catholic faith, then that child will be denied baptism as a Catholic. Canon Law makes this perfectly clear.

Canon law says delay, not deny. And, yes, this has already been stated-- I haven’t said otherwise. And, canon law also states that baptism is to be delayed if such hope is **altogether **lacking.

2/ there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion; if such hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be delayed according to the prescripts of particular law after the parents have been advised about the reason.

Therefore, it is a *pastoral *decision based upon the priest’s interview with the parents as to whether he believes the canonical requirements are met. As the OP’s pastor indicated, there may be times when the priest does decide to baptize and others when he would delay it, even indefinitely.

In the quotation above that you are responding to me about, I was responding only to the OP’s statement that the fate of unbaptized infants was “not in question.” That was the purpose of my quotation of the Catechism. In no way did I state or imply that canonical requirements need not be met.

But, since the canons leave *latitude *for the pastor’s own discretion, there whill obviously be a multiplicity of positions on the outcome of any particular scenario-- because those doing the speculating place themselves in the role of the pastor and extrapolate what they would do.

I personally don’t know what I would do. I would *probably *delay baptism and counsel the parents but I would lean towards baptism in situations where there was ample evidence the child would be brought to church and educated in the faith. I am merely concurring with the OP’s priest who stated that there is *discretion *and it would be a *pastoral *decision based on the individual case.

 

[ELMitz]

Hmmmm…to deny a child baptism because of the sins of the parents…dangerous precedent.

I don’t think anybody has suggested that the sins are the relevant aspect. If the presence of sin were the issue then the Cannon law would be so obtuse as to not allow anybody (human at least) to baptize their child.

Let’s say the man of a heterosexual Catholic married couple has an issue with masturbation; something serious, but not known to the community.

For the sake of comparison this is not accurate as EVERYBODY in the community would be aware that these “parents” are a homosexual “married” couple.

The question can be distilled down to these more focused questions:

1. Is there “a founded hope” that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion given that the infant’s parents will forever (assuming they honor their “vows”) willfully disobey the church in such a public and fundamental way.
2. Can a child in this situation be expected to ever – EVER – fully believe the teachings of the Church with regards to marriage, reproduction, etc.

I’m not picking just on homosexuals here, the same would apply, I agree, with a heterosexual couple who lives together, reproduces and refuses to marry although this situation at least does not violate the Natural Law of One Man/One Woman.

 

[Michael_VPV]

Actually, that was in the text of the quotation in the original post. .

Where does it say that it is actually impossible for both of a homosexual couple to be parents of a child? It says that only one can act in the ceremony as parent. That is not the same thing.

If this were the case, there would be many more babies denied baptism because their parents disagree with or actively dissent from one or more Church teachings.

Yes, and?

But, fortunately for those babies the Chuch doesn’t view a parent’s questionable morals or zeal for the faith as a canonical impediment to baptism. Mixed marriages in which one parent actively disagrees with Catholic doctrine isn’t an impediment either.

Unfortunately for those babies, they would be raised in the belief that a state of mortal sin is fine, that their parent ( and partner, if also catholic) would go to hell…

Originally Posted by Michael VPV
Finally, it is not possible for a practising homosexual to be active and participating in all ways other than regarding the church’s teaching on homosexuality, because they would be in a state of persistent mortal sin. So for example, they would not be able to receive communion or go to confession ( unless they were willing to stop it). After all, we are talking here about one of the four sins crying to heaven for vengeance.

Also not a canonical impediment to a chid’s baptism.

I didn’t say that it was, but the priest in the Original post, hypothetically discussed such a case of a homosexual couple with a child. I was pointing out that it was an impossible situation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael VPV
I think that would extend to children of unmarried couples, too - they would be teaching the child that it is not a sin to have sex and children outside of marriage, unless and until they do marry and show genuine repentance.

And yet, not an impediment to baptism.

I didn’t say it was, I was saying that I don’t see how that could be reconciled with a “well founded hope…” Just because some are willing to baptise in these situations, it doesnt mean they are right or that they have thought it through properly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael VPV
Single mothers - that should be looked at per individual case. For a mother whose husband has left without consent who has acted in good faith throughout, I would think that it is fine to baptise the child, or for a mother or father who has demonstrated true repentance of unmarried sex.
However, if the attitude of having sexual partners outside of marriage is persistent, then no, because the child again will most likely be raised with that sinful attitude.

And yet, not an impediment to baptism.

And yet, like the homosexual example, hope of raising the child in the faith is altogether lacking if the parents set that example and are not repentant about it.
Notice I am using the word “should” which is not the same as what may be decided in reality. What is decided in reality may not always be right.

Originally Posted by Michael VPV
Alhough I have never engaged in any homosexual activity myself, I have been no saint in the past myself with regard to sex, but to avoid hypocrisy I am pointing out what I understand the church’s position would be, rather than using this to portray myself as holier than thou in some way.

But that is not the Church’s position at all.

I didn’t say it was, I said it would be. I can qualify that by saying it would be if the pastoral decisionmakers made an honest decision. I believe there is no hope that a child will be raised in the catholic faith ( with all of its beliefs, not just the convenient ones) if the parents are persistently in sin and clearly unwilling to change. They will impart the same values to the child. I have no doubt at all about this.

 

[Michael_VPV]

Hmmmm…to deny a child baptism because of the sins of the parents…dangerous precedent. Let’s say the man of a heterosexual Catholic married couple has an issue with masturbation; something serious, but not known to the community. Should he refuse to have his baby baptized until he “has it under control” or “kicks” the masturbation addiction? What if he is never able to kick it? How does this square with your position?

I think El Mitz beat me to the main answer to this one.
But there is another difference in the scenario you mention. The father clearly realises that his masturbation is wrong, and presumably he also does it in private and is trying to deal with it.

By definition, a homosexual couple do not believe they are wrong, and are not trying to deal with it, because if they seriously were, they would separate. Their commitment to their “lifestyle” is self-evident and there for all to see.

It would be a closer analogy if the masturbating father were to leave porn all over the house for the child to see, and have no intention of removing it.

 

[ELMitz]

Exactly Michael.

 

[1ke]

Also, the delay must be “according to the prescripts of particular law after the parents have been advised about the reason.”

Therefore, if there is particular law in place (diocesan bishop or episcopal conference) then the priest would need to follow it-- which may restrict the circumstances when they would delay or may give specific guidance as to when it is to be done.

 

[Elizabeth502]

He stated that this is a “pastoral” decision and that given two couples:

one who are openly gay and “married” but attend mass faithfully and are fully invested in every other church teaching other than the teaching on homosexuality, and…

a typical Catholic couple who never attend mass and have not participated in the sacrments but being born Catholic wish their child to be baptized…

He would be more inclined to baptize the first couple’s child.

This does not ring correct to me. I know we are ALL sinners, but at what point does the Canon Law actually go into effect if not here?

Please help me understand!

Well, I have to agree with you that I don’t understand the pastor’s reply, either.

openly gay and "married" but attend mass faithfully and are fully invested in every other church teaching other than the teaching on homosexuality.

That’s a huge exception. Assuming that the contrasting heterosexual couple are lukewarm Catholics but in compliance in the essential lifestyle (valid marriage, not divorced, not cohabitating), I also don’t understand the point the pastor is making. The homosexual couple has a much huger hurdle to overcome. In fact, the only way that such a “couple” can overcome it is to separate, living apart. (Yes, they could stay “married” in the same house, living chastely, and drive each other crazy; either way, the role modeling is terrible for the child.) And by stating that they make supposedly better candidates for a child’s baptism, the priest is also validating, by his decision, an invalid marriage in the Church’s eyes!

My opinion (and based on much experience with several parishes), the baptism of a child often renews a couple’s religious fervor, or ignites for the first time. It will be far easier for the pastor to convince the heterosexual couple to become more engaged with their faith (as a condition of baptism, or a result) than it will be for him to convince the homosexual couple to stop living in sin. (Good luck with that, Father.)

OP, I thought your email to the Deacon was beautifully worded, btw.

 

[thistle]

Canon law says delay, not deny. And, yes, this has already been stated-- I haven’t said otherwise. And, canon law also states that baptism is to be delayed if such hope is **altogether **lacking.

2/ there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion; if such hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be delayed according to the prescripts of particular law after the parents have been advised about the reason.

Therefore, it is a *pastoral *decision based upon the priest’s interview with the parents as to whether he believes the canonical requirements are met. As the OP’s pastor indicated, there may be times when the priest does decide to baptize and others when he would delay it, even indefinitely.

In the quotation above that you are responding to me about, I was responding only to the OP’s statement that the fate of unbaptized infants was “not in question.” That was the purpose of my quotation of the Catechism. In no way did I state or imply that canonical requirements need not be met.

But, since the canons leave *latitude *for the pastor’s own discretion, there whill obviously be a multiplicity of positions on the outcome of any particular scenario-- because those doing the speculating place themselves in the role of the pastor and extrapolate what they would do.

I personally don’t know what I would do. I would *probably *delay baptism and counsel the parents but I would lean towards baptism in situations where there was ample evidence the child would be brought to church and educated in the faith. I am merely concurring with the OP’s priest who stated that there is *discretion *and it would be a *pastoral *decision based on the individual case.

Sorry. I think I’m mixing up some posts.

Of course “delay” can be indefinite if the parents show zero intention to bring the child up in the Catholic faith.

As for homosexual “parents”, by definition they will not allow a child to be brought up in the Catholic faith because knowledge of the faith could drive a wedge between them and the child.

 

[Newbie2]

I don’t think anybody has suggested that the sins are the relevant aspect. If the presence of sin were the issue then the Cannon law would be so obtuse as to not allow anybody (human at least) to baptize their child.

For the sake of comparison this is not accurate as EVERYBODY in the community would be aware that these “parents” are a homosexual “married” couple.

The question can be distilled down to these more focused questions:

1. Is there “a founded hope” that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion given that the infant’s parents will forever (assuming they honor their “vows”) willfully disobey the church in such a public and fundamental way.
2. Can a child in this situation be expected to ever – EVER – fully believe the teachings of the Church with regards to marriage, reproduction, etc.

I’m not picking just on homosexuals here, the same would apply, I agree, with a heterosexual couple who lives together, reproduces and refuses to marry although this situation at least does not violate the Natural Law of One Man/One Woman.

Exactly. I was searching for a good “straight” analogy and missed.

So here is the crux…not baptizing Junior because of his (legal) parents situation…how does that affect Junior? Is he better off getting most of the Church’s teachings right from dad and dad, (assuming that “both dads” are otherwise devoted Catholics outside the obvious) than not getting baptized at all?

This seems to be a totally pastoral question; I don’t see any clear formula to discern this question in general. I guess it has to be looked at case-by-case.

I think El Mitz beat me to the main answer to this one.
But there is another difference in the scenario you mention. The father clearly realises that his masturbation is wrong, and presumably he also does it in private and is trying to deal with it.

By definition, a homosexual couple do not believe they are wrong, and are not trying to deal with it, because if they seriously were, they would separate. Their commitment to their “lifestyle” is self-evident and there for all to see.

It would be a closer analogy if the masturbating father were to leave porn all over the house for the child to see, and have no intention of removing it.

Yeah, that’s a better analogy. I’m sure there are better ones to illustrate my point, perhaps an unwed couple adopting and raising a child and taking him or her in to be baptized.

 

[Elizabeth502]

This seems to be a totally pastoral question; I don’t see any clear formula to discern this question in general. I guess it has to be looked at case-by-case.

Well, I have never seen any “case” that the pastor in this case described to the OP’s wife’s class, that would stand much of a chance of being reversed. Because gay couples who are actually struggling with their condition of grave sin tend not to have taken the step to actually “marry.” In fact, I can’t think of a single case in any parish I’ve attended which includes ambivalently gay members, which would contradict that. If they become part of an LGBT group, let alone “married” in some civil ceremony, to a person they are “signed on” to the sexually active lifestyle and will abandon it when hell freezes over. Those who come into a parish without a live-in partner are a whole different story. Very often, they have had illicit partners in the past but are now free from that, and they express privately to the priest(s) that they want to remain chaste and would like help doing that. (I know because priests have shared that with me without reference to names, of course.)

I.m.o. the priest being discussed here is really turned off by much of the lukewarmness he sees in the pews, and I couldn’t agree with him more. It’s also a huge turn-off to me, which is why I don’t attend the typical Sunday parish mass, and why I marvel that the presiding priest can actually stand up there and observe so much non-engagement in the pews (not to mention little passion for the sacrament of Penance, etc.) and still remain a priest. He may be imagining that there are some more-fervent, more-passionate gay “couples” out there whose passion he can convert to fidelity, but I think he’s being way more imaginative than reality calls for here. Again, an individual, unattached gay person is a completely different thing. In one of our local parishes, the gay couples who have been cohabitating simply don’t show up for Mass any more, because the new bishop has been clear about reinforcing the expectations.

Yes, pastorally there is theoretically the possibility that he will encounter a corrigble gay, cohabiting couple, but it is a long shot. From a pastoral perspective, he would need to have some vocal sign from both of them that they are tentative about the arrangement and could be persuaded to abandon it.

 

[1ke]

Where does it say that it is actually impossible for both of a homosexual couple to be parents of a child? It says that only one can act in the ceremony as parent. That is not the same thing.

I did a little research on this, and actually Canon Law would allow both of the legal parents to act as the parents for baptism.

Canon 110 Children who have been adopted according to the norm of civil law are considered the children of the person or persons who have adopted them.

So, if the two men or women had legally adopted the child through civil proceedings, canon law would consider them to be their parents.

According to the commentary on the code of canon law, the term “person or persons” could apply to single-parent adoptions and same-sex adoptions. I wonder if clarification will be forthcoming from CDF or CDS, since I’m sure that wasn’t the intent when the code was created. But, clearly it would apply.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Its not a black and white issue. According to the USCCB website:

Similarly, the Church does not support the adoption of children by homosexual couples since homosexual unions are contrary to the divine plan. For this reason, Baptism of children adopted by such couples presents a pastoral concern. Nevertheless, the Church does not refuse the Sacrament of Baptism to these children, but there must be a well founded hope that the children will be brought up in the Catholic religion.

nccbuscc.org/comm/archives/2006/06-203.shtml

 

[Elizabeth502]

And Father, does reaffirming one’s active gay lifestyle as a couple constitute “a well-founded hope that the children will be brought up in the Catholic religion”? I mean, my father was Protestant and he didn’t have to renounce his faith in order to meet the requirements for either his marriage to my mother or my baptism, but he was also not living a controversial lifestyle which would have confused me – such as having a mistress on the side, by some kind of agreement with my mother. (Some couples do have “arrangements” like that.)

What is the consistency of a couple communicating to the pastor a “well-founded hope for the children” but an ill-founded hope for themselves? Does that not present a barrier to the children’s understanding of what it means to be a faithful Catholic, via role-modeling of their “parents”?

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

And Father, does reaffirming one’s active gay lifestyle as a couple constitute “a well-founded hope that the children will be brought up in the Catholic religion”? I mean, my father was Protestant and he didn’t have to renounce his faith in order to meet the requirements for either his marriage to my mother or my baptism, but he was also not living a controversial lifestyle which would have confused me

The Church baptizes children from all sorts of irregular relationships and marriages: couples divorced and remarried without annulments, unmarried cohabitating couples, children conceived via in vitro fertilization, children of career criminals, etc. All those situations present serious challenges to accepting Church teachings.

having a mistress on the side, by some kind of agreement with my mother. (Some couples do have “arrangements” like that.)

So, what would you suggest in that situation? Should an “open marriage” couple’s child be denied baptism?

What is the consistency of a couple communicating to the pastor a “well-founded hope for the children” but an ill-founded hope for themselves? Does that not present a barrier to the children’s understanding of what it means to be a faithful Catholic, via role-modeling of their “parents”?

Sin is present in all marriages and, as pointed out, there’s plenty of dysfunction to go around that challenges children’s understanding of Catholic living. While John Gotti was refused a Catholic funeral, I am unaware of his children being denied baptims. In the 1960’s my region’s local Catholic mafia don was a pillar of the local Italian parish and had his all his children baptized.

The Church has a long history of trying to work with sinful families. As long as the parents agree to send the child to religious education and bring them to Mass I’m not sure on what basis the child can be denied baptism…

 

[Elizabeth502]

So, what would you suggest in that situation? Should an “open marriage” couple’s child be denied baptism?

No. I guess with this example, I would wonder if mandatory counseling would not be in order. (Yes, I know priests have so much time for this nowaday. )

Sin is present in all marriages and, as pointed out, there’s plenty of dysfunction to go around that challenges children’s understanding of Catholic living.

Correct. However, I distinguish the broad category of universal sin, in all marriages, and in all parenthood, with a particular confirmed lifestyle which on its face “challenges children’s understanding of Catholic living.” In a situation of a confirmed homosexual couple’s partaking of Eucharist every week, along with (eventually) the child, I as a child - -having been taught what’s necessary for participating in Eucharist – would be scandlized and confused if my same-sex "parents’ were partaking. Yes, the sin of my parents is separate from my personal baptism, but the overt conflict, without pastoral correction, is very problematic to me and calls into question the sincerity of the parents’ wishes to raise their child as a Catholic. That is because the Church recognizes that the parents are “the first teachers of the faith” to that child. How would a homosexual couple explain to their own child what the church teaches about marriage?

If someothing’s hidden (personal sin that is not “a lifestyle,” not public, not a repudiation of one of the other sacraments (marriage), that is not problematic. (Did I bother myself with whether my mother had hidden or private sins before she went to communion? Of course not. I was well-instructed in both Catholic spirituality and sacramental theology. But she wasn’t doing anything publicly to contradict any fundamentally grave requirement. That’s the point.)

Plenty of single mothers, having had a child out of wedlock (i.e., sinful), get their child baptized. That conflict is in the past, not the present. I would hope that a perpetually cohabitating couple (no less than the homosexual couple) would be required to come to counseling about this post facto to the baptism, as a condition of baptism.

I see some unresolved conflicts here not only with regard to participation in the sacraments (with all the responsibilities which accompany those – all the sacraments), not only in parents’ + church’s teaching of the child vs. the public lifestyle of the parents, but also with regard to the integrity of the family. It undermines the unity of a Catholic family, it seems to me, to validate uncorrected lifestyles once a new member is brought into the Church. Yes, sacraments confer indelible marks, but implied in the sacrament is a witness to the consent that the parents and/or recipient have expressed.

I see the mafia don situation, and any other sin that is not a direct effront to the other sacraments (marriage, for example) to be in a different category. That is the universal sin that nevertheless subsists alongside all sacraments. The mafia don’s nuclear family is not being taught a different sacramental theology at home than what is being taught in the church. They shield their children, then they lie to their children, but they don’t represent that gay “marriage” is OK, or that murder, lying, racketerring is OK with God.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

No. I guess with this example, I would wonder if mandatory counseling would not be in order. (Yes, I know priests have so much time for this nowaday. )

As far as I know, a priest has no authority to demand someone undertake counseling as a prerequisite for baptism.

In a situation of a confirmed homosexual couple’s partaking of Eucharist every week, along with (eventually) the child, I as a child - -having been taught what’s necessary for participating in Eucharist – would be scandlized and confused if my same-sex "parents’ were partaking.

Depends on what you mean by “participating in the Eucharist.” Everyone, even public sinners are required to attend Mass according to canon law. If you mean receiving communion, then yes there is a problem but not one that allows for denial of baptism of a child. Afterall, what about those married outside the Church who do nothing about it but receive each week?

Yes, the sin of my parents is separate from my personal baptism, but the overt conflict, without pastoral correction, is very problematic to me and calls into question the sincerity of the parents’ wishes to raise their child as a Catholic. That is because the Church recognizes that the parents are “the first teachers of the faith” to that child. How would a homosexual couple explain to their own child what the church teaches about marriage?

Indeed, its problematic. However, we’re talking about what the canons call for and how the Church Herself has interpreted those canons. There’s plenty of situations in which one has to wonder how the child will properly learn the faith. The question becomes: why single out this group over the others?

But she wasn’t doing anything publicly to contradict any fundamentally grave requirement. That’s the point.)

If parents aren’t living the faith that the children are learning, the children figure it out.

Plenty of single mothers, having had a child out of wedlock (i.e., sinful), get their child baptized. That conflict is in the past, not the present.

The issue is, once again, one of public sin. Why baptize in one situation but not another? As one teenager, born to a single mother, said to me, “If premarital sex is wrong and everyone followed that, then I wouldn’t be here. Are you saying God didn’t want me to exist?”
Its a question that took some gentleness and thoughfulness to answer. But clearly every situation that is irregular causes confusion about Church teaching.

I would hope that a perpetually cohabitating couple (no less than the homosexual couple) would be required to come to counseling about this post facto to the baptism, as a condition of baptism.

Once again, under what authority would a priest be able to do so?

It undermines the unity of a Catholic family, it seems to me, to validate uncorrected lifestyles once a new member is brought into the Church.

As does baptizing children born to invalid marriages, single parents, cohabitating parents, in vitro conceptions, surrogate mothers, etc.

I see the mafia don situation, and any other sin that is not a direct effront to the other sacraments (marriage, for example) to be in a different category.

So we’ll baptize your child if you kill people for a living, but if you engage in sexual intercourse with the wrong person we’ll banish your family? That’ll lead to an exodus of even the “regular” families who’d think that policy to be wrongheaded and illogical.

but they don’t represent that gay “marriage” is OK, or that murder, lying, racketerring is OK with God.

I’m not so sure about that…

 

[Elizabeth502]

There’s plenty of situations in which one has to wonder how the child will properly learn the faith. The question becomes: why single out this group over the others?

Because it is a direct sacrilege of another sacrament. It is not just sin. It is a public denial, on its face, of an essential church teaching about a sacrament. But the priest is saying, “Hey no problem. You have no respect for a different sacrament. You’re denying that sacrament by your very lifestyle, but you want me to administer this other sacrament, which for some reason you will respect.” It would appear that the priest is validating that hypocrisy, unless there is corresponding counseling of the homosexual couple. (That counseling would consist of reminding the couple what the child will be taught, and getting some verbal acknowledgement from them that they have no intention of subverting that theological instruction.) I guess, then, that the priest in this case is just willing to give up on the critical role of the parents in disseminating the faith to the child.

If parents aren’t living the faith that the children are learning, the children figure it out.

Yes. And they do. And they do so quickly. Which is why I don’t see an essentially contradictory problem with the mafia don. Generally they’re not even going to Mass any more, let alone receiving Communion. And they are not teaching something different to their children about marriage, or the Eucharist. They’re just constantly lying to them about their own business/personal lives, despite the children seeing through that.

“If premarital sex is wrong and everyone followed that, then I wouldn’t be here. Are you saying God didn’t want me to exist?” Its a question that took some gentleness and thoughfulness to answer. But clearly every situation that is irregular causes confusion about Church teaching.

And I never suggested that that child shouldn’t exist, nor that child shouldn’t be baptized.

Perhaps I don’t see the sacramental life of the Church, and of its members, as so segmented, and certainly I don’t see it as segmented from the catechesis of the child. Disposition is important to the validity of the sacrament (especially when the parents are stand-ins for the child, as they are in infant baptism), and that’s why I question the intent of the couple in this case (and I didn’t say that the homosexual couple needs more counseling than the cohabitaing heterosexual couple; I said quite the opposite).

And I would consider it equally important to remind the IVF child’s parents, the parents of the child with the surrogate mother, etc., of exactly the same thing that the homosexual couple should be told, or asked: Are you prepared to teach this child Catholc moral theology regarding reproduction, sexuality, and all sacraments (including marriage)? Otherwise, as I say, the Church, if it takes no steps (that don’t contradict with canon law) to support the unity of the Catholic family, it can be seen as an instrument of disunity, by omission.

I’ll just note that you haven’t addressed this issue yet: the issue of Catholic family unity. I appreciate it that there’s no control over that. My issue is not “control.” The issue is witness and the observable, apparent ingredients for family cohesiveness and spiritual consistency, which the Church states is important.

 

[ELMitz]

As far as I know, a priest has no authority to demand someone undertake counseling as a prerequisite for baptism.

Our Parish, and most in the Diocese I believe, requires parents to attend a series of Baptism Prepartion Classes. I’m sure if I were to raise a stink I would be exempted, but still…

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Our Parish, and most in the Diocese I believe, requires parents to attend a series of Baptism Prepartion Classes. I’m sure if I were to raise a stink I would be exempted, but still…

1. Those are general classes that everyone is expected to attend, no one is singled out.
2. Canonically there is no justification for refusing baptism if the parents refused to attend the class.