Gays and their children should not suffer Church bias: Vatican

[esieffe]

I would have thought that it would not be necessary for the Vatican to issue a “reminder” on church doctrine. I am sadly mistaken. The CCC says gay sex is disordered but people who suffer from this are to be treated with respect and dignity. Yet there are a few Catholics, people who profess to want to live the example of Jesus Christ, who advocate throwing gay kids out of the home.

If you feel that children should be thrown out of the home for SSA then you are in my prayers.

 

[larsont7]

So the question here is…does a priest choose not to baptize children whose parents don’t come to church often? Or if they are using birth control? Etc, etc. Because I’d imagine those parents would be raising their kids just as closely “in the faith” as the same-sex couple.
By example, they too are living “sinfully” in front of their children.

Except in really small parishes, I would guess that most priests don’t know how often a certain couple attends weekly Mass, and I’m guessing an even smaller percentage of priests know if a couple uses birth control. I would guess that few children know if their parents use birth control either. It’s pretty easy for a priest to figure out that a same sex couple is coming to baptize their child.

The Church doesn’t permit Protestant couples to get baptized in the Church, nor does it permit unmarried cohabitating couples to baptize their children, so the Church isn’t just singling out same-sex couples.

Do priests ask the parents all these kinds of questions before they baptize their baby?

I would hope, at minimum, the priest would ask the couple if they are both Catholics in good standing with the Church (which would exclude any of those I mentioned above). If the couple is truthful, then there should be no problems baptizing the child.

The so-called “sin” may just be more apparent in the same-sex couple. A majority of parents who bring their babies to the church for baptizing may be committing the exact same “level” of “sin” as the same-sex couple…and have the same same level of devoutness to their faith…and also disagree with church teachings.

One cannot compare one who sins (which is every one of us) to one who lives in a perpetual state of sin, and lives that way openly. I don’t see how parents can commit to raising a child in the Catholic faith without first adhering to the teachings of the Catholic Church themselves.

 

[Estevao]

I remember reading an article from reuters a while back about women becoming priestesses in the Catholic church that was totally off-base. I haven’t considered them a reliable news source since then.

 

[saintjohnxxiii]

In my very humble opinion, if the Church is going to make a change regarding baptism of children whose “parents” are homosexuals then the proper course would be to change that Canon Law provision that says that there has to be a well founded hope that the Child has to be raised as a Catholic.

Why do I say that?

First the Sacrament of Baptism isn’t just about the child but also about the parent as evidenced by the requirement currently in Canon law.

Secondly, even if by baptizing the child spurs the homosexual couple to realize the errors of their way (homosexual marriage, acts of homosexual sex) and they live as the Church requires them, then what happens to that “family” situation?

What does the Church do currently if a divorced and remarried person (while the first spouse is still alive) comes to the Church with their new spouse and child with that person requesting baptism?

Considering the militancy of activist gays and how the homosexual couples who are coming to the Church to request this under the very clear guise of trying to get the Church to accept their lifestyle, I would recommend waiting until the child is of age (18). I wouldn’t even do it privately.

 

[McCall1981]

Speaking of “Call to Action” and similar dissident groups being unhappy with this document, the NcR has an opinion piece that is titled “Synod paper is boring and joyless”.

I literally lol’d when I read that

 

[on_the_hill]

will there be a proper concern for these children’s right to be raised in the Catholic Faith? Or will the children’s right to a Catholic upbringing become secondary to the parent’s wish for acceptance?

Indeed. But we wouldn’t deny baptism based on what we may or may not know about the future.

 

[JimG]

Indeed. But we wouldn’t deny baptism based on what we may or may not know about the future.

Apparently we would, since the canon requires a founded hope that the children will be raised in the Catholic Faith.

If it were not so, a Baptist, Muslim, Hindu, or Bahai, might bring his child to the Catholic parish for baptism. Should the parish simply take the position that “well, as long as they’re baptized, there is always hope that some day they might embrace Catholicism.”

 

[on_the_hill]

Apparently we would, since the canon requires a founded hope that the children will be raised in the Catholic Faith.

If it were not so, a Baptist, Muslim, Hindu, or Bahai, might bring his child to the Catholic parish for baptism. Should the parish simply take the position that “well, as long as they’re baptized, there is always hope that some day they might embrace Catholicism.”

Good question. I don’t know.

 

[TK421]

This is a hard issue for me. I’m not able to structurally picture this in my head.

How is it humanly possible to be more accepting of people in homosexual union/relationships while simultaneously condemning what they are doing? Do you adopt a duality of personalities and pretend everything is peachy when in reality you know it isn’t? I just can’t see how it works. I mean yeah, you obviously don’t throw visitors out of the Mass, but communion is explicitly for people that are baptized Catholics that are in full communion with the Church and not living in mortal sin. How is it theologically possible to dance around that?

I know, I know, this goes on all the time among heterosexuals, but this latest popular innovation from the sexual revolution is so much more publicly visible than the previous ones.

 

[livingwordunity]

This is a hard issue for me. I’m not able to structurally picture this in my head.

How is it humanly possible to be more accepting of people in homosexual union/relationships while simultaneously condemning what they are doing? Do you adopt a duality of personalities and pretend everything is peachy when in reality you know it isn’t? I just can’t see how it works. I mean yeah, you obviously don’t throw visitors out of the Mass, but communion is explicitly for people that are baptized Catholics that are in full communion with the Church and not living in mortal sin. How is it theologically possible to dance around that?

I know, I know, this goes on all the time among heterosexuals, but this latest popular innovation from the sexual revolution is so much more publicly visible than the previous ones.

Good points.

 

[FollowChrist34]

“Call to Action” is not happy with this document, which is a good thing:

southernorderspage.blogspot.com/2014/06/call-to-action-decries-synods-working.html

Love it.

 

[FollowChrist34]

This is a hard issue for me. I’m not able to structurally picture this in my head.

How is it humanly possible to be more accepting of people in homosexual union/relationships while simultaneously condemning what they are doing? Do you adopt a duality of personalities and pretend everything is peachy when in reality you know it isn’t? I just can’t see how it works. I mean yeah, you obviously don’t throw visitors out of the Mass, but communion is explicitly for people that are baptized Catholics that are in full communion with the Church and not living in mortal sin. How is it theologically possible to dance around that?

I know, I know, this goes on all the time among heterosexuals, but this latest popular innovation from the sexual revolution is so much more publicly visible than the previous ones.

Yes, in terms of the children in these situations, I think we need to look at them the same way we would the child of an alcoholic or an abuser or an adulterer, etc. We’re all sinners. Just put the child in your prayers. I believe they should be baptized. But I also believe they are suffering a great wrong. They are in an unnatural, unhealthy situation due to the selfishness and moral weakness of others who have power over them.

 

[Teelynn]

Apparently we would, since the canon requires a founded hope that the children will be raised in the Catholic Faith.

If it were not so, a Baptist, Muslim, Hindu, or Bahai, might bring his child to the Catholic parish for baptism. Should the parish simply take the position that “well, as long as they’re baptized, there is always hope that some day they might embrace Catholicism.”

It surely seems that this is exactly the position they are taking. This business about establishing ‘intent’ on the part of parents (and Godparents) is idealistic pie in the sky. I have seen MANY Baptisms of children by questionable couples that the priest just ignores the status of the couple, and looks the other way. Establishing ‘intent’ is an ideal situation not at all a realistic one even now.

 

[Teelynn]

This is a hard issue for me. I’m not able to structurally picture this in my head.

How is it humanly possible to be more accepting of people in homosexual union/relationships while simultaneously condemning what they are doing? Do you adopt a duality of personalities and pretend everything is peachy when in reality you know it isn’t? I just can’t see how it works. I mean yeah, you obviously don’t throw visitors out of the Mass, but communion is explicitly for people that are baptized Catholics that are in full communion with the Church and not living in mortal sin. How is it theologically possible to dance around that?

I know, I know, this goes on all the time among heterosexuals, but this latest popular innovation from the sexual revolution is so much more publicly visible than the previous ones.

You are not alone in the confusion. I have read numerous articles including those on the Vatican website that state that the Church must be more compassionate and accepting of homosexual couples. Even Cardinal Dolan not long ago made the remark that the Church had not been as ‘charitable’ to homosexual people in the past as they should be. Maybe I’m not as informed as I should be, but I have never known the Church to be ***uncharitable ***to these people. I’ve never seen evidence of uncharitable treatment to either single homosexuals or couples either one. I really don’t understand where they are coming from with this line of thinking. Does the lack of charity have anything to do with not allowing them to receive the Eucharist when they are living in a publically sinful state? I must say, I just don’t get it.

 

[JimG]

It surely seems that this is exactly the position they are taking. This business about establishing ‘intent’ on the part of parents (and Godparents) is idealistic pie in the sky. I have seen MANY Baptisms of children by questionable couples that the priest just ignores the status of the couple, and looks the other way. Establishing ‘intent’ is an ideal situation not at all a realistic one even now.

Establishing intent is not so difficult. Just ask them. “Do you intend to raise this child as a Catholic once he is baptized?” “Do you yourselves accept what the Church teaches?” “If you do not, how will you raise him as a Catholic?” Just ask the questions.

It’s rather like marriage. The vows promise lifelong fidelity. If one of the couple, or both, later comes back, saying “but I didn’t really mean for life!”, well then there’s a declaration of nullity in the works.

 

[SuperLuigi]

=DaddyGirl;12118899]I don’t see where some of you are seeing an agenda.

We can discuss the merits & motives of this article, but in the grander scheme of things, there most certainly is an agenda.

Do you think there is anything wrong** with welcoming these children in the faith with equal dignity?

.

Nope. But don’t try and use that as comfort/hope that the Church will change it’s teachings because of some false sense that progressivism is inevitable (especially on personal level) just because it’s trying to bring awareness to certain issue, clarify Catholic teaching or even fine-tune it.

 

[EIF5A]

Which illustrates even more ignorance (and perhaps arrogance) on the part of “Catholics” who would dare to use the sex scandal to undermine Church teaching.

I think we should separate “credibility” and “authority”.

Authority is given from above. Credibility is something we can lose by our actions that run counter to what we profess and believe.

I think one can accept Church teachings while still believing that certain events in the past have harmed how the world views the Church.

 

[PeopleB4Things]

From the article posted at the beginning of the thread… “A conspicuously lavish lifestyle by some of the clergy shows an inconsistency between their teaching and their conduct. Some lay faithful live and practise their faith in a ‘showy manner,’ failing to display the truth and humility required by the gospel spirit,” the document said.

This is certainly true in my parish. We have a lot of Lexus and BMW drivers in our church. Yet is seems like those who are running/working the ministries drive old minivans and Hyundais.

 

[PeopleB4Things]

You are not alone in the confusion. I have read numerous articles including those on the Vatican website that state that the Church must be more compassionate and accepting of homosexual couples. Even Cardinal Dolan not long ago made the remark that the Church had not been as ‘charitable’ to homosexual people in the past as they should be. Maybe I’m not as informed as I should be, but I have never known the Church to be ***uncharitable ***to these people. I’ve never seen evidence of uncharitable treatment to either single homosexuals or couples either one. I really don’t understand where they are coming from with this line of thinking. Does the lack of charity have anything to do with not allowing them to receive the Eucharist when they are living in a publically sinful state? I must say, I just don’t get it.

You’re right. I’ve only seen a few cases of people making less than charitable comments about the lifestyles of our gay members. Most parishioners accept them, their partners and children with love and kindness. But then I live in the Mid Atlantic and my parish is rather huge and diverse. It’s probably a totally different story in more conservative parts of our country. Some southern and mid-western parishioners may be less charitable, passing judgment on their fellow gay parishioners, covertly and overtly.

 

[Tigg]

From the article posted at the beginning of the thread… Some lay faithful live and practise their faith in a ‘showy manner,’ failing to display the truth andgospel spirit," the document said.

This is certainly true in my parish. We have a lot of Lexus and BMW drivers in our church. Yet is seems like those who are running/working the ministries drive old minivans and Hyundais.

RED FLAG HERE! To me this quote, which came from the respondents to the document, typifies an encroaching Marxist attitude, and excuse me, but the spirit of envy seems to be showing among Catholics. Just exactly what does it mean to practice the faith in a showy manner and not display truth? Since when can anyone judge the condition of another’s heart by externals and who should be concerned about the model of car our neighbor drives? How could it possibly be known if those who can afford luxury cars, bought by the fruit of their own labor, do or do not also write generous checks to charitable causes? This kind of thinking is dangerous and was condemned by Pope Leo in some of his encyclicals.