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

[manualman]

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.

In fairness, that last one is also entirely possible in the case of a same sex couple. Perhaps unlikely, but then again you do tend to hear that many lesbian couples in particular outgrow the sexual antics but remain relationally intimate for life.

I could see a situation in which a gay or lesbian couple adopt or use less moral means to have a child together, attend mass and practice Catholicism in SPITE of the cognitive dissonance of how they are living their lives (raise your hand if you have no consistent struggles with sin, eh?), then eventually come to a point of conviction where they repent of the sexual component of their relationship, but still wish to collaborate to raise the child that has now bonded to both of them.

Sin creates messy situations that can tricky to deal with after repentance. We shouldn’t jump to conclusions based on the sinfulness involved in the CREATION of a mess such that we conclude that there can be no repentance, forgiveness or reconciliation possible. But it’s tricky business and I’d say it’s wise to centralize the discernment, spiritual direction and decision making in cases like this to diocesan representatives specially trained in the pastoral and canonical issues involved.

Plus, it’s Madison, WI where I went to college. Consider it the San Francisco of the Midwest. Given that reality, the diocese is probably quite wise to play careful defense.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

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.

Then this is an abuse in infant Baptisms in the cases you mention.

Baptism is treated as a social event rather than a Sacrament of Faith.

The child in such situations has no chance of being raised with sound Catholic Doctrine, if the parents ignore those Doctrines.

Jim

 

[Corki]

In fairness, that last one is also entirely possible in the case of a same sex couple. Perhaps unlikely, but then again you do tend to hear that many lesbian couples in particular outgrow the sexual antics but remain relationally intimate for life.

Extremely unlikely. The “brother and sister” accommodation is a special situation for the good of the child. It allows the child to grow up with a mother and father even if they are not validly married. So, yes, in theory, the other real parent could move in with the same sex couple and the non-parent could stay in the house as a “friend”. That would allow the child to grow up with a mother and father plus an additional caregiver. But the situation for a same sex couple is not really at all like a divorced and remarried couple. Such a remote possibility is probably not going to rise to the level of a “well founded hope”.

 

[seakelp]

This is deeply sad.

Each and every one of us is a sinner, and each and every one of us persists in our sin. It hurts God, and it hurts ourselves. But here we are, buying into the political dichotomy of liberal v. conservative. Instead of welcoming all sinners into the arms of the Church, we’re abandoning some sinners all because of some social stigma.

This is very, very sad.

 

[manualman]

Extremely unlikely. The “brother and sister” accommodation is a special situation for the good of the child. It allows the child to grow up with a mother and father even if they are not validly married. So, yes, in theory, the other real parent could move in with the same sex couple and the non-parent could stay in the house as a “friend”. That would allow the child to grow up with a mother and father plus an additional caregiver. But the situation for a same sex couple is not really at all like a divorced and remarried couple. Such a remote possibility is probably not going to rise to the level of a “well founded hope”.

I’m not sure you’ve made the case terribly well here yet. Take a straight divorced woman with a child who remarries and has another child with her new (non) husband. Eventually, their consciences catch up and they decide to be reconciled to God, go to confession and resolve to live celibately while raising both children. As I understand it (and you seem to agree), the church recognizes this as a valid way to resolve the moral quandary (if brutally difficult).

How is it different for a lesbian couple in which one gets artificially inseminated (or two gay men who adopt) to have a child and later both come to see the destructive sinfulness of the lifestyle they have embraced AFTER the child is born and old enough to establish familiar bonds to BOTH of them? Granted only one person is “mommy” but family bonding is more complex than just labels can describe. I’d assert that if these two women confess, live together as sisters, seek to be conformed to Christ via Grace and obedience there is zero reason that the child shouldn’t be baptized. Granted it’s likely to be rare and brutally hard, but no more so than the heterosexual ‘brother and sister’ solution!

 

[JimR-OCDS]

This is deeply sad.

Each and every one of us is a sinner, and each and every one of us persists in our sin. It hurts God, and it hurts ourselves. But here we are, buying into the political dichotomy of liberal v. conservative. Instead of welcoming all sinners into the arms of the Church, we’re abandoning some sinners all because of some social stigma.

This is very, very sad.

Sinners who repent are welcome into the Church. But a person must first acknowledge that they are living a life of sin.

Sinners who have no desire to change their lives and reject Church teaching outright, well, why do they want to become Catholic in the first place ?

Jim

 

[seakelp]

Sinners who repent are welcome into the Church. But a person must first acknowledge that they are living a life of sin.

Sinners who have no desire to change their lives and reject Church teaching outright, well, why do they want to become Catholic in the first place ?

Jim

I absolutely understand and sympathize with this, Jim.

But I don’t think it’s helpful for the rejuvenation and betterment of the child or the couple to treat them this way. All it will do is further alienate the couple from the Church. That’s my prediction, anyway.

There are better and more productive ways to help bring all of us closer to Christ and the Church.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I absolutely understand and sympathize with this, Jim.

But I don’t think it’s helpful for the rejuvenation and betterment of the child or the couple to treat them this way. All it will do is further alienate the couple from the Church. That’s my prediction, anyway.

There are better and more productive ways to help bring all of us closer to Christ and the Church.

We bring people to Christ, we don’t drag them to Him and we certainly don’t turn a blind eye to the truth, just to lure them in.

If I were a male prostitute, should the Church not tell me that my lifestyle is sinful, and if I don’t change, I’m not worthy to receive the Sacraments ?

Jim

 

[seakelp]

We bring people to Christ, we don’t drag them to Him and we certainly don’t turn a blind eye to the truth, just to lure them in.

Respectfully, we also don’t push them away because their behavior is sinful.

If I were a male prostitute, should the Church not tell me that my lifestyle is sinful, and if I don’t change, I’m not worthy to receive the Sacraments ?

Jim

The Church obviously should, and yes, it shouldn’t.

But it shouldn’t impose that same penalty on your kid.

 

[Corki]

There are better and more productive ways to help bring all of us closer to Christ and the Church.

So, let’s hear it. What can/should the Church do to bring these individuals and their children closer to Christ and not affirm sin?

 

[seakelp]

So, let’s hear it. What can/should the Church do to bring these individuals and their children closer to Christ and not affirm sin?

1. We should treat all sexual sin the same. A gay couple, an unmarried couple, or a divorced couple stand in the same position. While the unmarried couple may wed, and the divorced couple may reunite, in the present moment their positions are completely identical. Additionally, the hope that these couples will cease to persist in their sin is dependent on each couple’s unique circumstances, divorced from whatever species of sin they are engaged in. A gay couple that is seriously pursuing reconciliation with the Church and working to reform their lives to live in accord with God’s law inspires more hope for their future in the Church than a divorced, heterosexual couple that has no interest in changing their ways.

Thus,

2. We should not categorically place limitations on certain classes of people. To say to a homosexual couple, “Your child’s future in the Church is more questionable than an unmarried heterosexual couple’s child’s future,” unfairly assumes that heterosexual couples have a better chance of reform than a homosexual couple.

Thus,

3. The individual parish priest should be the one to make a decision regarding the administration of the Sacraments to individuals. If we know that categorically assuming one type of sinner is less likely than some other to change their ways, we should necessarily look to the individual circumstances of the couple. Who is in the best position to undertake that type of analysis? Obviously, the individual parish priest. He will know where the couple is spiritually, how and to what extent the couple is attempting to move beyond their sinfulness, and so forth.

Therefore, I would suggest that this diocese’s plans are at least ill-advised, and at worse, going to push more people away from the Church unnecessarily.

 

[Corki]

1. We should treat all sexual sin the same. A gay couple, an unmarried couple, or a divorced couple stand in the same position. While the unmarried couple may wed, and the divorced couple may reunite, in the present moment their positions are completely identical. Additionally, the hope that these couples will cease to persist in their sin is dependent on each couple’s unique circumstances, divorced from whatever species of sin they are engaged in. A gay couple that is seriously pursuing reconciliation with the Church and working to reform their lives to live in accord with God’s law inspires more hope for their future in the Church than a divorced, heterosexual couple that has no interest in changing their ways.

Thus,

2. We should not categorically place limitations on certain classes of people. To say to a homosexual couple, “Your child’s future in the Church is more questionable than an unmarried heterosexual couple’s child’s future,” unfairly assumes that heterosexual couples have a better chance of reform than a homosexual couple.

Thus,

3. The individual parish priest should be the one to make a decision regarding the administration of the Sacraments to individuals. If we know that categorically assuming one type of sinner is less likely than some other to change their ways, we should necessarily look to the individual circumstances of the couple. Who is in the best position to undertake that type of analysis? Obviously, the individual parish priest. He will know where the couple is spiritually, how and to what extent the couple is attempting to move beyond their sinfulness, and so forth.

Therefore, I would suggest that this diocese’s plans are at least ill-advised, and at worse, going to push more people away from the Church unnecessarily.

The problem with this is that all sexual sin is NOT the same. And same sex unions, especially those which have involved children, are much more than just sexual sins. So your plan is based on a faulty premise that can only be used as a starting point if the Church ditches it’s entire teaching on marriage.

As for your last point, based on the history of the Madison diocese, I think the idea is to Baptize more children of same sex couples, not less. Yes, this may drive orthodox Catholics away but not out of the Church herself but to more traditional parts of the Church.

 

[seakelp]

The problem with this is that all sexual sin is NOT the same.And same sex unions, especially those which have involved children, are much more than just sexual sins.

Incorrect.

The Church, obedient to the Lord who founded her and gave to her the sacramental life, celebrates the divine plan of the loving and live-giving union of men and women in the sacrament of marriage. It is only in the marital relationship that the use of the sexual faculty can be morally good. A person engaging in homosexual behaviour therefore acts immorally.

This exact same logic applies to all sexual acts outside of marriage. That is why homosexuality is sinful: it is against God’s plan for procreative sex within the bounds of marriage.

Divorced sex, unmarried sex, masturbation, prostitution, etc., all participate in the same basic immorality. The reasons for the immorality of homosexuality are identical to the reasons for the immorality of other sexual sins. Yes, each of these sins have unique characteristics that differentiate them from one another. This is obvious. But you are wrong to say that they are dissimilar enough to merit dissimilar treatment.

So your plan is based on a faulty premise that can only be used as a starting point if the Church ditches it’s entire teaching on marriage.

Completely wrong, and I fail to see any logic, here.

 

[Corki]

Incorrect.

This exact same logic applies to all sexual acts outside of marriage. That is why homosexuality is sinful: it is against God’s plan for procreative sex within the bounds of marriage.

Divorced sex, unmarried sex, masturbation, prostitution, etc., all participate in the same basic immorality. The reasons for the immorality of homosexuality are identical to the reasons for the immorality of other sexual sins. Yes, each of these sins have unique characteristics that differentiate them from one another. This is obvious. But you are wrong to say that they are dissimilar enough to merit dissimilar treatment.

Completely wrong, and I fail to see any logic, here.

Nothing in what you quoted equates to a Catholic understanding that all sexual sin is the same. All sexual sin is in the same basic category of sin - sin against marriage. But within that category, some sin is venial some mortal, the sins are disordered in different ways and some sin is reformable (i.e. sex with a person you aren’t married to is reformed when you get married to that person) and other sin is not.

A couple who 1) has sex a few weeks before their wedding night is not in anywhere near the same category of sin as 2) a couple who has sex while both are married to other people or to 3) a person who has sex with children. And the Church’s treatment would not be equal. 1) save it for the wedding night, 2) break off this sinful relationship, 3) get psychological help and stay away from children.

Also, not all sex is sinful. Some acts are sinful only in context (i.e. adultery) but homosexual acts are always sinful.

1. We should not categorically place limitations on certain classes of people. To say to a homosexual couple, “Your child’s future in the Church is more questionable than an unmarried heterosexual couple’s child’s future,” unfairly assumes that heterosexual couples have a better chance of reform than a homosexual couple.

But this isn’t what we say at all. To delay Baptism to a same sex couple (or a cohabiting couple) is not to cast any question on the child’s future but to question **the parents **ability to provide a Catholic upbringing to the child. Part of Baptism is a promise to do so. How can a couple who has no intention of providing a Catholic home to a child stand up and lie about it and how can the Church participate in that lie?

unfairly assumes that heterosexual couples have a better chance of reform than a homosexual couple

There’s nothing unfair about it. A homosexual couple has absolutely ZERO chance of reform while remaining a couple. Even a slight chance that a heterosexual couple can resolve whatever keeps them from being Catholics in good standing is “a better chance”. It is not “unfair” to recognize simple facts.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Respectfully, we also don’t push them away because their behavior is sinful.

The Church obviously should, and yes, it shouldn’t.

But it shouldn’t impose that same penalty on your kid.

Again, Baptism isn’t a social event, but a Sacrament of Faith.

It’s not the faith of the child which is being denied, for he/she doesn’t have any. It’s through the faith of the parents who seek to have the child Baptized. In they do not have faith, and that means they believe in the teachings of the Church, then the child should not be Baptized. If they are living in sin, they are not living the faith and their child will not be raised properly in the faith. If the child is Baptized while the parents are still living in sin, the child will not see that life-style as being sinful. So, the child is placed into confusion and will either resent the Church or the parents when he/she comes to learn the truth.

The Church is being forced into a bind here. Turn a blind eye to the sin of the parents, or stand firm in guarding the truth.

The child can be Baptized when they reach the age of reason and decide to commit their lives to Christ if that’s their decision.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

seakelp;

1. We should treat all sexual sin the same.

A gay couple, an unmarried couple, or a divorced couple stand in the same position. While the unmarried couple may wed, and the divorced couple may reunite, in the present moment their positions are completely identical. Additionally, the hope that these couples will cease to persist in their sin is dependent on each couple’s unique circumstances, divorced from whatever species of sin they are engaged in. A gay couple that is seriously pursuing reconciliation with the Church and working to reform their lives to live in accord with God’s law inspires more hope for their future in the Church than a divorced, heterosexual couple that has no interest in changing their ways.

Actually, a divorced and remarried couple can not receive the Sacraments and they too should not be able to have their child Baptized. Again, the child would be raised not as a Catholic, but in a confused state of what being a Catholic involves. They grow believing that being cohabitation is not sinful and they would not know the meaning behind the sacrament of marriage.

B]2. We should not categorically place limitations on certain classes of people.

To say to a homosexual couple, “Your child’s future in the Church is more questionable than an unmarried heterosexual couple’s child’s future,” unfairly assumes that heterosexual couples have a better chance of reform than a homosexual couple.

The condition for all couples to have their child Baptized is that they will be raised in the faith, If the parents life-style is a contradiction to the faith, then the Church will not be raised in the faith, but some psuedo aspect of Catholicism of the parent’s.

3. The individual parish priest should be the one to make a decision regarding the administration of the Sacraments to individuals. If we know that categorically assuming one type of sinner is less likely than some other to change their ways, we should necessarily look to the individual circumstances of the couple. Who is in the best position to undertake that type of analysis? Obviously, the individual parish priest. He will know where the couple is spiritually, how and to what extent the couple is attempting to move beyond their sinfulness, and so forth.

And because of the lawsuits gay couples have been launching against the Church, the dioceses has to take it out of the hands of the priests.

The reality is, people do not have a right to have their child Baptized. There are conditions for infant Baptism to take place and it’s the faith of the parents which determines this.

Jim

 

[seakelp]

Jim and Corki,

For my own convenience, I’ll just respond to both of you in one post.

Can. 868 §1. For an infant to be baptized licitly:

1/ the parents or at least one of them or the person who legitimately takes their place must consent;

2/ 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.

§2. An infant of Catholic parents or even of non-Catholic parents is baptized licitly in danger of death even against the will of the parents.

Assuming the exceptions of Section 2 of CIC 868 don’t apply, we’re all referring and discussing the “founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion.”

What I think we’re arguing about is whether it is possible that a homosexual couple is capable of raising their child as a Catholic.

Am I correct in this assumption?

 

[LongingSoul]

The reality is, people do not have a right to have their child Baptized. There are conditions for infant Baptism to take place and it’s the faith of the parents which determines this.

I’m not sure this is technically correct. The whole point of infant baptism reflects a thing at the very heart of the Catholic faith regarding the real nature of baptism. It’s efficacy is aided by faithful and believing parents but isn’t dependent on it. I think there has to be right ‘intention’ with the parents, but the quality of their faith is not technically a bar.

There are probably implications specifically relevant to homosexual ‘parents’ that could relate to ‘intention’ ?

My father didn’t realise he was a baptised Catholic until he went to marry my mother. Where I live in Australia was a very remote State at the time of his birth and it was the general practice for Catholic and Anglican priests/ministers to take turns travelling around the State baptising infants in remote areas. (At that time in the 30’s, the State had only been settled for about 70 years). Neither of my paternal grandparents are Catholic but their 3 children happened to be visited on the Catholic priests rounds of the State so they are all Catholic.

 

[seakelp]

I’m not sure this is technically correct. The whole point of infant baptism reflects a thing at the very heart of the Catholic faith regarding the real nature of baptism. It’s efficacy is aided by faithful and believing parents but isn’t dependent on it. I think there has to be right ‘intention’ with the parents, but the quality of their faith is not technically a bar.

There are probably implications specifically relevant to homosexual ‘parents’ that could relate to ‘intention’ ?

My father didn’t realise he was a baptised Catholic until he went to marry my mother. Where I live in Australia was a very remote State at the time of his birth and it was the general practice for Catholic and Anglican priests/ministers to take turns travelling around the State baptising infants in remote areas. (At that time in the 30’s, the State had only been settled for about 70 years). Neither of my paternal grandparents are Catholic but their 3 children happened to be visited on the Catholic priests rounds of the State so they are all Catholic.

It’s definitely not correct - the faith of the parents is not at issue at all. The only qualification in the Code of Canon Law states that there must be a “founded hope” the child will be brought up in the Catholic religion.

Typically, of course, this will depend on the parents’ own faith. But we can imagine scenarios wherein a parent may agree to raise their child as a Catholic but may not be a Catholic themselves.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Jim and Corki,

For my own convenience, I’ll just respond to both of you in one post.

Assuming the exceptions of Section 2 of CIC 868 don’t apply, we’re all referring and discussing the “founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion.”

What I think we’re arguing about is whether it is possible that a homosexual couple is capable of raising their child as a Catholic.

Am I correct in this assumption?

And how could that be possible when the teaching of the Church prohibits gay cohabitation and doesn’t recognize gay marriages ?

It may be possible, but not probable.

Jim