T
TomH1
Guest
Amen (5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Parents who are huge sinners, whether it’s an irregular union they are in or anything else, may want their child baptized for all kinds of good reasons. The priest can determine this by talking to them. You seem to be assuming that because two adults may be struggling with their relationship with the Church, it’s okay to punish their child. Not them, but the child. That’s unfair and frankly, cruel to the child. I find it extremely disturbing.
If a pro-abortion politician brought his child to be baptized, would you refuse to do that too? That’s a whole lot of kids you just excluded from our church…kids who might even grow up to pray for or have a good influence on their parents.
Muting now.
If a pro-abortion politician brought his child to be baptized, would you refuse to do that too? That’s a whole lot of kids you just excluded from our church…kids who might even grow up to pray for or have a good influence on their parents.
Muting now.
Last edited:
According to site of the French Catholic newspaper L’Homme nouveau, (link in French), Bishop de Metz-Noblat wrote his brothers bishops that the aim was not so much to be welcoming to LGBTQ+ families as to avoid possible future lawsuits for “discrimination” (which, speaking as a fellow Frenchwoman, does unfortunately not seem unlikely).
This suggested change also probably has other family configurations in view, like reconstituted families, where one of the “holders of parental authority” isn’t the biological parent of one or more children. (And at the risk of stating the obvious, some couples in such situations are in perfectly valid sacramental marriages.)
And, incidentally, baptism prep also offers an opportunity to explain why the Church teaches what she teaches about marriage (because some parents will inevitably ask why marriage is so important), with the result that some couples decide to regularize their situation, which would not have happened had they been refused baptism for their child.
This suggested change also probably has other family configurations in view, like reconstituted families, where one of the “holders of parental authority” isn’t the biological parent of one or more children. (And at the risk of stating the obvious, some couples in such situations are in perfectly valid sacramental marriages.)
I teach ecumenically-organized baptism prep classes (mandatory for every family who wants to baptize their kid either in the Catholic or the Reformed communities of my city). It is rare that I see a married Catholic couple. In fact, the majority of the Catholic couples I meet do live in a union not recognized by the Church (and, as weird as it can sound, honestly do not understand why the Church considers they “live in sin”). They are still welcomed and the Church baptizes their children, because, as Mgr de Metz-Noblat wrote, “children cannot be held responsible for the situation of their parents”.If someone is living in a union not recognized by the Church, and is not seeking to bring themselves back into a good relationship with the Church, then why would we baptize their children?
And, incidentally, baptism prep also offers an opportunity to explain why the Church teaches what she teaches about marriage (because some parents will inevitably ask why marriage is so important), with the result that some couples decide to regularize their situation, which would not have happened had they been refused baptism for their child.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.