Gays can baptize children

[Kendy]

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/28/AR2006102800808.html

Children adopted by gay couples may be baptized in the Roman Catholic Church, even though the church does not support such adoptions, calling them “a pastoral concern,” according to new guidelines for ministering to gay men and lesbians that will be presented to U.S. bishops next month in Baltimore.

So, how will a homosexual couples raise their kids catholic?

 

[CRW]

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/28/AR2006102800808.html

Children adopted by gay couples may be baptized in the Roman Catholic Church, even though the church does not support such adoptions, calling them “a pastoral concern,” according to new guidelines for ministering to gay men and lesbians that will be presented to U.S. bishops next month in Baltimore.

So, how will a homosexual couples raise their kids catholic?

It seems that the Church position, and rightly so, is to ensure the Sacraments are available to the children. After all, they are sinless in this state and require the same salvation as all children. They still can be raised Catholic because the couple are not banned from the Church, just the Sacraments. We live in a very changed world today.

 

[LittleRose]

Right on, CRW!

Baptism is not about anyone’s parents. It is about the soul of the person being baptized. This is why adults who get baptized don’t need to have their parents present, or even have their permission! Baptized and faithful Catholics who do not have Catholic parents in good standing are probably thankful for this.

Why should the child be deprived of Baptism, just because its parents are openly engaged in a sinful relationship? What about the children of unmarried heterosexual couples? Should the Church refuse to baptize those too?

Just as it is wrong to de-value a person’s life because of the way they are concieved by allowing people conceived under certain circumstances (such as sin and poverty) to be aborted, it is wrong to deprive children of Jesus and thereby endanger their souls, just because of the state of their parents. The parent’s sin does not make the child’s soul worth less. It’s not like the child chose its parents.

If anything, the child in these situations probably needs the Holy Spirit even more, if it is to grow up in such a permissive environment and still become a good catholic.

 

[HoppityRedux]

Has anyone mad a case that these kids should not be baptised? What is that case?

 

[RyanL]

Has anyone mad a case that these kids should not be baptised? What is that case?

In the case of pedobaptism, the parents profess the faith and promise to raise the child Catholic. That’s why it’s permitted – normatively, faith precedes baptism. Infant baptism is a special mercy of the Church, but the Church relies on the faith of the parents to confer that mercy.

In the case of an unwed mother, it’s possible (if not likely) she has repented. In the case of an actively homosexual couple, what are the chances?

If they haven’t repented, it’s probably because they don’t feel that they have done anything of which to repent.

This, of course, is contrary to Church teaching.

That being the case, in whose faith will the child likely be raised? The faith of the Church or the faith of the couple? And yes, those are two different faiths.

This being the case, is it better to bring the child into the Church while raising the child to believe heresy, or is it better tonot baptize and to try to convert the child when the child is older? That’s the question at hand, and it’s a fundamentally pastoral question. What is best for the child’s soul?

Thankfully, that’s not up to me.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Kendy]

Right on, CRW!

Baptism is not about anyone’s parents. It is about the soul of the person being baptized. This is why adults who get baptized don’t need to have their parents present, or even have their permission! Baptized and faithful Catholics who do not have Catholic parents in good standing are probably thankful for this.

Why should the child be deprived of Baptism, just because its parents are openly engaged in a sinful relationship? What about the children of unmarried heterosexual couples? Should the Church refuse to baptize those too?

Just as it is wrong to de-value a person’s life because of the way they are concieved by allowing people conceived under certain circumstances (such as sin and poverty) to be aborted, it is wrong to deprive children of Jesus and thereby endanger their souls, just because of the state of their parents. The parent’s sin does not make the child’s soul worth less. It’s not like the child chose its parents.

If anything, the child in these situations probably needs the Holy Spirit even more, if it is to grow up in such a permissive environment and still become a good catholic.

I don’t think they should deny them baptism; I just don’t see the point of making them say they are going to raise the children catholic when they don’t plan to live as catholics.

Kendy

 

[Kendy]

In the case of pedobaptism, the parents profess the faith and promise to raise the child Catholic. That’s why it’s permitted – normatively, faith precedes baptism. Infant baptism is a special mercy of the Church, but the Church relies on the faith of the parents to confer that mercy.

In the case of an unwed mother, it’s possible (if not likely) she has repented. In the case of an actively homosexual couple, what are the chances?

If they haven’t repented, it’s probably because they don’t feel that they have done anything of which to repent.

This, of course, is contrary to Church teaching.

That being the case, in whose faith will the child likely be raised? The faith of the Church or the faith of the couple? And yes, those are two different faiths.

This being the case, is it better to bring the child into the Church while raising the child to believe heresy, or is it better tonot baptize and to try to convert the child when the child is older? That’s the question at hand, and it’s a fundamentally pastoral question. What is best for the child’s soul?

Thankfully, that’s not up to me.

God Bless,
RyanL

Thank you for stating my position so well

 

[Karin]

I don’t think they should deny them baptism; **I just don’t see the point of making them say they are going to raise the children catholic when they don’t plan to live as catholics. **

Kendy

Exactly…why?!

 

[fix]

This being the case, is it better to bring the child into the Church while raising the child to believe heresy, or is it better tonot baptize and to try to convert the child when the child is older? That’s the question at hand, and it’s a fundamentally pastoral question. What is best for the child’s soul?

I wonder if using that word pastoral we will see many more homosexual couples having the children in their care baptized while almost never addressing the points you raise? Will it become simply accepted that such unions are now legitimate? That is my concern.

Perhaps I am missing something but the notion that homosexual couples want to raise their kids in the faith seems schizophrenic. As you say which faith?