In the Spirit: Catholic diocese changes process for baptism of children of same-sex couples

[saintjohnxxiii]

host.madison.com/lifestyles/faith-and-values/religion/in-the-spirit-catholic-diocese-changes-process-for-baptism-of/article_a344d830-ee7c-588d-bc59-97a9d06b5656.html#ixzz35PJFUqYy

I don’ t know if I like this. Reminds me of what dioceses did in the late 60s when the Papal Commission approved the pill prior to Humanae Vitae. We all know the disastrous consequences of that.

 

[styrgwillidar]

I taught baptism classes for a while for our parish. Never had a same-sex couple attend, I would have treated them like any other couple. But that would have meant the same as to anyone, emphasizing that it’s their responsibility to teach their child the faith, raise them in it, and provide an example to them of living the faith.

I agree that the child shouldn’t be punished for the sins of the parents, or be shunned by the Church due to their parents conduct.

It’s tough though because the expectation is the child will be raised in the Catholic faith. That is the responsibility of the parents in presenting the child for baptism. I truly do not understand why someone who rejects the teachings of the faith and the Church would want to have their child baptized in the Church.

 

[Corki]

What a strange article. It doesn’t say that same sex couples will be approved more freely, only that the diocese will decide and not the pastor. So, I would guess the diocese will also provide the clergy for the Baptism and vet the Godparents, too?

If the intent is to Baptize the children living with same-sex couples more freely, it makes for a very odd situation. A person in a same sex union could present a child for Baptism but could not be a Godparent since the latter requires that the person be a Catholic in good standing.

 

[50yroldTOBfan]

I believe this is the crux of the issue, from near the end of the article:

…where there is reasonable hope that the child will be brought up in the Catholic faith, that child will be baptized,” King said. “If such hope is truly lacking, the baptism is to be deferred.”

 

[JimG]

What a strange article. It doesn’t say that same sex couples will be approved more freely, only that the diocese will decide and not the pastor. So, I would guess the diocese will also provide the clergy for the Baptism and vet the Godparents, too?

If the intent is to Baptize the children living with same-sex couples more freely, it makes for a very odd situation. A person in a same sex union could present a child for Baptism but could not be a Godparent since the latter requires that the person be a Catholic in good standing.

Yes, that is indeed a paradoxical situation. If a same sex couple seeks baptism for a child they are expected to raise him in the Catholic faith. That would include teaching him the immorality of any sexual activity outside of marriage, (which by definition excludes same sex marriage.)

 

[Tigg]

I taught baptism classes for a while for our parish. Never had a same-sex couple attend, I would have treated them like any other couple. But that would have meant the same as to anyone, emphasizing that it’s their responsibility to teach their child the faith, raise them in it, and provide an example to them of living the faith.

I agree that the child shouldn’t be punished for the sins of the parents, or be shunned by the Church due to their parents conduct.

It’s tough though because the expectation is the child will be raised in the Catholic faith. That is the responsibility of the parents in presenting the child for baptism.

A true quandary!

I truly do not understand why someone who rejects the teachings of the faith and the Church would want to have their child baptized in the Church.

I do not judge this particular couple, nor accuse, but I do suspect the (powerful) lobby advocating homosexual rights would not be adverse to “forcing” a baptism to convince others of the normalcy of their situation.

 

[camillebru]

My name is Camille bruno Valdez my partner and I have been trying for a baby for over two years now, We were going to a fertility clinic for about 5 months before somebody told us to contact this spell caster who is so powerful, We contacted him at this email; arewaspecialisttemple@yahoo.com, for him to help us, then we told him our problem, he told us that we will either conceive in February 2014 or March 2014,but after two years of trying we were at a point where we were willing to try anything. And I’m glad we came to Dr Dahiru, Because his pregnancy spell cast put us at ease, and I honestly believe him, and his gods really helped us as well, I am thankful for all he has done. contact him via email: arewaspecialisttemple@yahoo.com if you are trying to get a baby or want your lover back. he has powers to do it, he has done mine

 

[MomaMary8]

This may be a wise move by the diocese of Madison, WI. It takes the parish priest out of the front line attacks. It sounds like the pastor will be consulted in the decision, but the weight of the decision will fall upon the diocese officials.

The process now will be centralized, with requests coordinated through the office of the vicar general, the bishop’s second in command, in consultation with parish priests. Previously, such decisions were left largely to priestly discretion and sensitivity.

Read more: host.madison.com/lifestyles/faith-and-values/religion/in-the-spirit-catholic-diocese-changes-process-for-baptism-of/article_a344d830-ee7c-588d-bc59-97a9d06b5656.html#ixzz35ZMdTFBl

This would help to keep the parish priest doing what he does best, shepherding his flock, and keeping the politics of such decisions at the diocesan offices.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

My guess, and it’s just a guess so don’t run away with it, is that the diocese is now going to handle Baptisms of the children of gay couples because they’re bracing themselves for upcoming lawsuits, by gay parents who’s children are denied Baptism.

My understanding is that infants are only Baptized where the parents are Catholics in good standing, who promise to raise the child in the faith.

In other words, the child is Baptized through the faith of the parents.

Baptism is a sacrament of faith and when faith doesn’t exist, there can be no Baptism.

The child would have to wait until they reach the age of reason and choose Baptism for themselves.

Jim

 

[EIF5A]

A true quandary!

I do not judge this particular couple, nor accuse, but I do suspect the (powerful) lobby advocating homosexual rights would not be adverse to “forcing” a baptism to convince others of the normalcy of their situation.

Along the same line, I think many people consider baptism as a social ceremony and to deprive someone of that ceremony on the basis of orientation is deemed discriminatory.

It’s akin to denying entry into a social club based on certain protected categories, and the Church is seen as a social gathering place, not a place of worship.

 

[sttcatherinefan]

Yes, that is indeed a paradoxical situation. If a same sex couple seeks baptism for a child they are expected to raise him in the Catholic faith. That would include teaching him the immorality of any sexual activity outside of marriage, (which by definition excludes same sex marriage.)

So I’m assuming that you also believed that remarried divorcees shouldn’t be allowed to have their children baptized. Or perhaps a situation where a couple is living together and aren’t married. It strikes me that gay couples are sinners just like everyone else. Unless the parish priest is going to do a full investigation of each couple’s background and quizzing them on their knowledge of the Catholic faith, I think that gay couples should be afforded the same right to have their children baptized as straight couples. There are currently many heterosexual casual Catholic couples having their babies baptized so I’m not sure why people are worried about gay couples baptizing their kids as well.

 

[Corki]

So I’m assuming that you also believed that remarried divorcees shouldn’t be allowed to have their children baptized. Or perhaps a situation where a couple is living together and aren’t married. It strikes me that gay couples are sinners just like everyone else. Unless the parish priest is going to do a full investigation of each couple’s background and quizzing them on their knowledge of the Catholic faith, I think that gay couples should be afforded the same right to have their children baptized as straight couples. There are currently many heterosexual casual Catholic couples having their babies baptized so I’m not sure why people are worried about gay couples baptizing their kids as well.

Well, none of those would be eligible to be godparents which was the paradox we were discussing,

When a priest talks about Baptism with a couple that is not your regular married couple, he has to determine if there is a well founded belief that the child will be raised in the faith and that includes the Catholic teaching on marriage. With a divorced and remarried couple and with a couple living together without benefit of marriage, there is always the hope that they will regularize their situation. With a single parent, there is always that hope that he/she will eventually marry and give the child a stable home.

With a same-sex couple, the hope is,what? That they split up and return to the practice of the faith? Or that they hide their union from their child? There is no really good outcome to hope for. It’s a sad situation all around.

 

[sttcatherinefan]

Well, none of those would be eligible to be godparents which was the paradox we were discussing,

When a priest talks about Baptism with a couple that is not your regular married couple, he has to determine if there is a well founded belief that the child will be raised in the faith and that includes the Catholic teaching on marriage. With a divorced and remarried couple and with a couple living together without benefit of marriage, there is always the hope that they will regularize their situation. With a single parent, there is always that hope that he/she will eventually marry and give the child a stable home.

With a same-sex couple, the hope is,what? That they split up and return to the practice of the faith? Or that they hide their union from their child? There is no really good outcome to hope for. It’s a sad situation all around.

With remarried divorcees, there is no hope that they would be able to regularize their situation. The situation is either that they split up and deprive their child of a home or that they remain on the fringes of Church and live in sin. Since remarried divorcees are barred from receiving the Eucharist, many probably feel uncomfortable in Mass. They probably don’t go to Mass because of that. Even if they do, the children might be upset with how their parents are treated in the Church and might become lapsed themselves. For instance, I could see a precocious seven-year-old deciding not to make his or her First Communion because Mommy and Daddy cannot receive Communion. So why should the children of remarried divorcees be baptized?

Also, what about the couples who use birth control (most of them)? Or how about the couples more interested in the ceremony or the party they are throwing after the baptizing or pleasing the grandmas? There are millions of ways that Catholics could be uninformed about their faith or be casual Catholic; I’m not sure why we are picking on one group.

 

[Corki]

With remarried divorcees, there is no hope that they would be able to regularize their situation. The situation is either that they split up and deprive their child of a home or that they remain on the fringes of Church and live in sin.

Those aren’t the only two possibilities. The prior spouse could die, the remarried person could seek and obtain an annulment or the couple could (with the permission of their priest) live together as brother and sister.

Since remarried divorcees are barred from receiving the Eucharist, many probably feel uncomfortable in Mass. They probably don’t go to Mass because of that. Even if they do, the children might be upset with how their parents are treated in the Church and might become lapsed themselves.

And if a couple does not intend to go to Mass regularly, the priest would be right to delay Baptism until they chose again to practice their faith. Receiving Communion isn’t the only point, or even the most important part, of Mass.

For instance, I could see a precocious seven-year-old deciding not to make his or her First Communion because Mommy and Daddy cannot receive Communion. So why should the children of remarried divorcees be baptized?

A decision to delay Baptism isn’t made on the basis of “what ifs” that may or may not happen in the future. If the parents are doing their job of properly teaching the child about the Sacraments and if the child is getting good supplemental Sacrament preparation, such a scenario shouldn’t happen.

Also, what about the couples who use birth control (most of them)?

What about them? Everyone sins in one way or another and this is not likely a sin that a young child would be exposed to.

Or how about the couples more interested in the ceremony or the party they are throwing after the baptizing or pleasing the grandmas?

Being “more interested” in the party doesn’t mean the parents aren’t also desiring the Sacramental reality of Baptism for their child and it doesn’t point in any way to an unwillingness to bring the child up in the Church. A couple who does not really want their child brought up Catholic but just wants to please grandma would hopefully be told to delay Baptism.

There are millions of ways that Catholics could be uninformed about their faith or be casual Catholic; I’m not sure why we are picking on one group.

Because bringing children into the world and into the faith is rightly the role of the parents and is a duty of marriage to bring a child up in a Catholic family. A same sex couple cannot be true parents nor can they give a child a model of a Christian family.

Same sex couple are certainly not **the only ones **who should be scrutinized with regard to their true intentions when bringing a child to be Baptized. But they present challenges that these other groups do not and less likelihood that the child will get a Catholic upbringing.

 

[50yroldTOBfan]

So I’m assuming that you also believed that remarried divorcees shouldn’t be allowed to have their children baptized. Or perhaps a situation where a couple is living together and aren’t married. It strikes me that gay couples are sinners just like everyone else. Unless the parish priest is going to do a full investigation of each couple’s background and quizzing them on their knowledge of the Catholic faith, I think that gay couples should be afforded the same right to have their children baptized as straight couples. There are currently many heterosexual casual Catholic couples having their babies baptized so I’m not sure why people are worried about gay couples baptizing their kids as well.

You raise some good points about slipshod vetting for heterosexual godparents as well.

But this is a mode of thinking that always puzzles me: Thing 1 is bad. Thing 2 is bad. So since we’re already doing Thing 1, which is bad, why not simply do Thing 2 as well?

I find this thinking very odd.

 

[JimG]

So I’m assuming that you also believed that remarried divorcees shouldn’t be allowed to have their children baptized. Or perhaps a situation where a couple is living together and aren’t married. It strikes me that gay couples are sinners just like everyone else. Unless the parish priest is going to do a full investigation of each couple’s background and quizzing them on their knowledge of the Catholic faith, I think that gay couples should be afforded the same right to have their children baptized as straight couples. There are currently many heterosexual casual Catholic couples having their babies baptized so I’m not sure why people are worried about gay couples baptizing their kids as well.

The key is whether there is a well founded hope that the child will be raised in the Catholic Faith.

When my parents married, she was Catholic, he was not. In those days, that was called a mixed marriage, and the marriage could not be held in the church. The priest married them in the sitting room of the parish rectory.

The old catechism had some questions about mixed marriages, and when I was studying it in Catholic school, I worried that my parent’s marriage was somehow not right. I asked them about it, and my mom assured me that they had received permission to marry and everything was approved. I was raised in the Catholic Faith. My dad even helped me with the catechism questions.

Some years back I was asked to be god-parent for a nephew’s child. He was not married to the mother of the child nor even living with her any longer. She agreed to go with him to the interview with the priest because the baptism was something he had decided he wanted.

I was reluctant. It seemed to me that there was not a well founded hope that the child would be raised Catholic. The priest was a little surprised at the situation, but not much, given the area in which they lived. Still, he agreed to the baptism. As far as I know, the child and the parents have never been back to a Catholic church since the baptism. What was the point of making him Catholic if he was not to be raised Catholic?

Some irregular marriage situations can be repaired. And those in irregular marriages are not prohibited from attending Mass. But a same sex couple has made a conscious decision to publicly reject an essential tenet of Catholic teaching, as well as to deny the child a mother and a father.

Perhaps there can be a hope that the child will be raised Catholic. But when the child comes across the Church teaching on same sex marriage in the course of his being raised Catholic, how will this couple handle the questions?

 

[FollowChrist34]

I truly do not understand why someone who rejects the teachings of the faith and the Church would want to have their child baptized in the Church.

No, I don’t either. I am hoping at some point that people will start to realize the very real, very painful consequences of same sex marriage. It’s not just about rights and self-expression. In my view, this is as close to making a mockery of the Christian faith as you can get. Plus an innocent child is a victim of the act. God help us.

 

[Elizium23]

My understanding is that infants are only Baptized where the parents are Catholics in good standing, who promise to raise the child in the faith.

Not true in my parish and diocese. The good standing of the parents is not taken into account, whilst the godparents are vetted thoroughly in order to be good role models of the faith. We frequently baptize children who are in cohabitating or invalidly married families.

 

[50yroldTOBfan]

The key is whether there is a well founded hope that the child will be raised in the Catholic Faith.

When my parents married, she was Catholic, he was not. In those days, that was called a mixed marriage, and the marriage could not be held in the church. The priest married them in the sitting room of the parish rectory.

The old catechism had some questions about mixed marriages, and when I was studying it in Catholic school, I worried that my parent’s marriage was somehow not right. I asked them about it, and my mom assured me that they had received permission to marry and everything was approved. I was raised in the Catholic Faith. My dad even helped me with the catechism questions.

Some years back I was asked to be god-parent for a nephew’s child. He was not married to the mother of the child nor even living with her any longer. She agreed to go with him to the interview with the priest because the baptism was something he had decided he wanted.

I was reluctant. It seemed to me that there was not a well founded hope that the child would be raised Catholic. The priest was a little surprised at the situation, but not much, given the area in which they lived. Still, he agreed to the baptism. As far as I know, the child and the parents have never been back to a Catholic church since the baptism. What was the point of making him Catholic if he was not to be raised Catholic?

Some irregular marriage situations can be repaired. And those in irregular marriages are not prohibited from attending Mass. But a same sex couple has made a conscious decision to publicly reject an essential tenet of Catholic teaching, as well as to deny the child a mother and a father.

Perhaps there can be a hope that the child will be raised Catholic. But when the child comes across the Church teaching on same sex marriage in the course of his being raised Catholic, how will this couple handle the questions?

I agree. The priest/bishop has discretion, and nowadays it seems they tend toward giving the parents (or adoptive parents) the benefit of the doubt, no matter what they are doing. I have learned to say “well, it’s their call”, even when I think the clergy is being a bit naive or unrealistically optimistic.

 

[EIF5A]

If some people take the “rule” of baptism with laxity and “demand” their children be baptized, would they approach the Eucharist with the same mindset (e.g., “It’s my right and to deny is is discrimination”)?

There seems to be less and less distinction between rights and privileges, not just in this situation, but in society in general…

But then again, the innocent child did nothing wrong and perhaps s/he will be an instrument of bringing other people into the faith.