Bishop Introduces Gender-Neutral Language for Baptismal Certificates

  • Thread starter Thread starter IanM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Maybe this is more of an issue in countries where the language on the certificates has the gender embedded. The certificates I filled out for years when working at the church said “That (Child’s Name), Child of (Parent’s Names) was baptized at …”. I never thought twice about the language on the certificate, and no one ever made a comment to me about it.
 
Perhaps surprisingly there’s no “standard format” for certificates - baptism or otherwise. All a certificate does is confirm what’s recorded in the parish register and there can be multiple different varieties even within a diocese. Some have “child of” while others “son/daughter of”; likewise some have “father” and “mother” while others have “parents”. So really this is just a new spin on something which has been around for ages and really has nothing at all to do with gender inclusiveness.
 
I think it’s the fact that it’s being done to satisfy LGBT caregivers- rather than just to “simplify things”- that is problematic.
 
Isn’t the Godfather expected to encourage and support the Godchild in the faith? I mean, I have a buddy who got denied by a parish priest because he wasn’t practicing.

The gender neutral thing doesn’t bother me so much, honestly. I’ve seen documents that were and never thought of them as anything scandalous (just figured it was a way to save money).

I will say though, and this is a terrible thing… I really struggle to assume good intentions with our Bishops. I pray for them. I obey and respect their authority. But when it comes to judging their actions I’m very skeptical. After all that has come out in the sex abuse scandal, I really need to see some consistent good judgement and pastoral care of their flock for awhile.
 
Elf01 said:
40.png
Thom18:
I think it’s the fact that it’s being done to satisfy LGBT caregivers- rather than just to “simplify things”- that is problematic.
Click to expand...
Why is that a problem?
Click to expand...
Generally speaking, an LGBT couple doesn’t show the desire to practice the faith themselves. Canon 868.2 says the following:

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.

CL doesn’t say what a case would look like where there is no “founded hope” that a child baptized will be raised in the Faith, but it seems to me (opinion) that a couple in a union not sanctioned by the Church wouldn’t be invested in raising a child in the Catholic faith.

This could also be a case of scandal. I’m aware that, in Catholic schools, employees sign a contract promising to uphold Catholic teaching and to live a Catholic life. Though school contracts aren’t Catholic doctrine, law or what have you, they don’t ask anything of employees which the Church doesn’t ask of its members, and being in a same sex union is considered scandalous.

Tl;dr It seems that the bishop is caving to a community whose members wouldn’t (shouldn’t?) have their request for the baptism of their child honored because of the Canon above.
 
Thom18 said:
CL doesn’t say what a case would look like where there is no “founded hope” that a child baptized will be raised in the Faith, but it seems to me (opinion) that a couple in a union not sanctioned by the Church wouldn’t be invested in raising a child in the Catholic faith.
Click to expand...
“Well-founded hope” is a pretty low bar to cross and intentionally so - funnily enough, we actually want people to have their kids baptised! We don’t ask for firm assurances, concrete evidence or even any sort of proof just some solid basis on which to found our hopes! When it comes down to it, LGBT couple isn’t all that different from any other couple in an irregular union and I’ve baptised a few of those! We don’t refuse (or delay) baptism simply because of the state of the parents’ relationship never mind their sexual orientation. If there’s is something to point to which provides a well-founded hope that the child will be brought up in the faith then that’s all that’s needed.
 
InThePew said:
We don’t refuse (or delay) baptism simply because of the state of the parents’ relationship never mind their sexual orientation. If there’s is something to point to which provides a well-founded hope that the child will be brought up in the faith then that’s all that’s needed.
Click to expand...
True. But note that “orientation” is not the concern, but rather the choice to engage in a same sex sexual relationship. I’m not declaring that a basis to reject the baptism request, but simply correctly identifying relevant issues.
 
I’m not sure I understand. There’s a place to name a Godmother and a Godfather, but not necessarily to name a mother and a father?
 
InThePew said:
We don’t refuse (or delay) baptism simply because of the state of the parents’ relationship never mind their sexual orientation. If there’s is something to point to which provides a well-founded hope that the child will be brought up in the faith then that’s all that’s needed.
Click to expand...
I’m honestly confused. How can there be a well-founded hope when the same-sex couple in question would be continually modeling something against church teaching by having a relationship together? I know that opposite-sex couples also can have irregular/invalid unions but in those cases it isn’t immediately apparent to the child. Those couples can be outwardly modeling Church teaching even if they really aren’t. So, what hope do we have that the same-sex couple will teach the child that same-sex relationships are sinful?
 
InThePew said:
40.png
Thom18:
CL doesn’t say what a case would look like where there is no “founded hope” that a child baptized will be raised in the Faith, but it seems to me (opinion) that a couple in a union not sanctioned by the Church wouldn’t be invested in raising a child in the Catholic faith.
Click to expand...
“Well-founded hope” is a pretty low bar to cross and intentionally so - funnily enough, we actually want people to have their kids baptised! We don’t ask for firm assurances, concrete evidence or even any sort of proof just some solid basis on which to found our hopes! When it comes down to it, LGBT couple isn’t all that different from any other couple in an irregular union and I’ve baptised a few of those! We don’t refuse (or delay) baptism simply because of the state of the parents’ relationship never mind their sexual orientation. If there’s is something to point to which provides a well-founded hope that the child will be brought up in the faith then that’s all that’s needed.
Click to expand...
We want children baptized, but we don’t want children to be baptized who aren’t going to be raised in the Faith. 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?

Similar to the Eucharist being withheld from manifest sinners, withholding Baptism from the child of someone in a similar situation is meant to be a wake up call to them that they are scandalizing others.
 
Gingersnaps4 said:
I know that opposite-sex couples also can have irregular/invalid unions but in those cases it isn’t immediately apparent to the child. Those couples can be outwardly modeling Church teaching even if they really aren’t. So, what hope do we have that the same-sex couple will teach the child that same-sex relationships are sinful?
Click to expand...
Whether it’s immediately obvious to the child or not is really not relevant; one could easily make the same point about a single parent or a divorced and remarried couple with a blended family. The point is that none of this goes to the fundamentals of the faith which are required to be professed at baptism. Granted these obviously more to the faith than just what we profess but that’s certainly the basis of it with the rest left to be picked up along the way. This obviously includes Church teaching around relationships when the child is old enough but suffice to say we don’t get into the finer points of faith and morals at the point of baptism since it is, after all, the child who will be receiving the sacrament and who will be baptised not merely into the faith of the parents but of the whole Church including, especially their parish community.
 
Thom18 said:
We want children baptized, but we don’t want children to be baptized who aren’t going to be raised in the Faith. 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?

Similar to the Eucharist being withheld from manifest sinners, withholding Baptism from the child of someone in a similar situation is meant to be a wake up call to them that they are scandalizing others.
Click to expand...
You’re going to punish the child by withholding a sacrament from the child because you’ve decided the parents are “manifest sinners”?

I’m really glad the Church takes a broader view.
 
Thom18 said:
Tl;dr It seems that the bishop is caving to a community whose members wouldn’t (shouldn’t?) have their request for the baptism of their child honored because of the Canon above.
Click to expand...
And if we were talking about baptizing a child being raised by a couple in an irregular marriage I’d agree. However, if the child is going to be baptized I don’t see a problem with changing the birth certificates.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
40.png
Thom18:
We want children baptized, but we don’t want children to be baptized who aren’t going to be raised in the Faith. 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?

Similar to the Eucharist being withheld from manifest sinners, withholding Baptism from the child of someone in a similar situation is meant to be a wake up call to them that they are scandalizing others.
Click to expand...
You’re going to punish the child by withholding a sacrament from the child because you’ve decided the parents are “manifest sinners”?

I’m really glad the Church takes a broader view.
Click to expand...
It’s not “punishing the child” any more than withholding the Eucharist from a pro-abortion politician would be “punishing” them. The canon says that baptism should be delayed when this hope isn’t present, and that the parents should be “advised of the reason”, giving them a chance to reconcile themselves with the Church. If they do, then there is hope that the child will be raised Catholic, and baptism could proceed. If they don’t, then I (opinion) would see that as proof of lack of desire to pass the Faith onto the Child on account of the lack of desire to be reconciled.

In any case, it’s not “punishing” the child, it’s an attempt to ensure that the baptism is being performed for the right reason.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top