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

  • Thread starter Thread starter saintjohnxxiii
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
But you are talking two different things there. Baptism is of a different nature to the other sacraments. Many converts are already baptised when they come to RCIA and they don’t need to be re-baptised as Catholic. The other sacraments require some measure of maturity to consent and understand what one is doing.
But the actual RCIA process is inconsistent with what you describe here. Non-Christian converts are NOT baptized the moment they express interest and then catechized. They really do make them wait in most circumstances.

Baptism is generally conferred when the person understands what it is and desires it. Infant baptism, while it has become the rule in historically Christian cultures, is really a special case. From biblical times, when people converted, their whole households were baptized. It seems to me that the infants received it as a special gift in recognition that the parents believed and will be working to raise them in the faith.

By your logic, why should we not travel round with holy water squirt guns forcibly baptizing everyone we meet? Why not shower them with Grace if that’s all baptism reduces to? You wouldn’t do that, right? (I’m not being serious, I’m pointing to where the end of that logic road leads).
 
I can’t help but wonder that satan is sitting there gloating over this stepping stone which soon shall lead to same sex marriage taking place in the church. People truly are blind by oblivion that they can’t see that all this proggression is leading to a era where the new generations will never know that what they think is right is in fact wrong and it was all because those of this time failed to walked the tightrope of not becoming wrathful but also not becoming merely drunk with what they think is the love of Christ when in fact it was only the deception of feelings coaxed on by devils.
 
But you are talking two different things there. Baptism is of a different nature to the other sacraments. Many converts are already baptised when they come to RCIA and they don’t need to be re-baptised as Catholic. The other sacraments require some measure of maturity to consent and understand what one is doing.

Baptism is like the planting of a seed. The soil does need to have some evidence of an ability to support its life and if there are other plants growing around somewhere, even sparsely there is a founded hope that this one might too. There’s really no way of knowing which seed will sprout and which won’t before they are planted. The most we can feel assured by is not the quality of the seed or the quality of the tree it came from… but the evidence of other growth in the area around it. That’s why the sponsers are the most important element in this ‘seed planting’ process.
And what if the soil is not only rocky, but the gardener intends to pour vinegar into it daily? Oh well, no worries, the sponsors, wherever they may be, can make anything grow!
 
I can’t help but wonder that satan is sitting there gloating over this stepping stone which soon shall lead to same sex marriage taking place in the church. People truly are blind by oblivion that they can’t see that all this proggression is leading to a era where the new generations will never know that what they think is right is in fact wrong and it was all because those of this time failed to walked the tightrope of not becoming wrathful but also not becoming merely drunk with what they think is the love of Christ when in fact it was only the deception of feelings coaxed on by devils.
You may be right. I can see it now. Long time “married” same sex couple approaches the local Catholic pastor. “Hey, you baptized our children. Now one of them wants to marry his same sex partner. Could you take care of it?” If not, everyone including the media will be shocked and outraged that the very priest who baptized these children refuses to marry them!
 
But you are talking two different things there. Baptism is of a different nature to the other sacraments. Many converts are already baptised when they come to RCIA and they don’t need to be re-baptised as Catholic. The other sacraments require some measure of maturity to consent and understand what one is doing.
Nothing inherent in the nature of the three sacraments of initiation requires mature consent or understanding for efficacy. It is only by construct of Church law that the Latin Church limits reception of Confirmation and Eucharist above the age of reason. One need only look to Eastern Churches to see that their practice, fully in accord with Catholic sacramental theology, differs and that infants can validly receive all three. Likewise they can be administered to the unconscious or mentally disabled. The graces flow regardless of the maturity or understanding of the recipient.
 
But the actual RCIA process is inconsistent with what you describe here. Non-Christian converts are NOT baptized the moment they express interest and then catechized. They really do make them wait in most circumstances.

Baptism is generally conferred when the person understands what it is and desires it. Infant baptism, while it has become the rule in historically Christian cultures, is really a special case. From biblical times, when people converted, their whole households were baptized. It seems to me that the infants received it as a special gift in recognition that the parents believed and will be working to raise them in the faith.

By your logic, why should we not travel round with holy water squirt guns forcibly baptizing everyone we meet? Why not shower them with Grace if that’s all baptism reduces to? You wouldn’t do that, right? (I’m not being serious, I’m pointing to where the end of that logic road leads).
And what if the soil is not only rocky, but the gardener intends to pour vinegar into it daily? Oh well, no worries, the sponsors, wherever they may be, can make anything grow!
I’ll just refer you to the words of Thomas Aquinas…

As the Apostle says (Romans 5:17), “if by one man’s offense death reigned through one,” namely Adam, “much more they who receive abundance of grace, and of the gift, and of justice, shall reign in life through one, Jesus Christ.” Now children contract original sin from the sin of Adam; which is made clear by the fact that they are under the ban of death, which “passed upon all” on account of the sin of the first man, as the Apostle says in the same passage (Romans 5:12). Much more, therefore, can children receive grace through Christ, so as to reign in eternal life. But our Lord Himself said (John 3:5): “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Consequently it became necessary to baptize children, that, as in birth they incurred damnation through Adam so in a second birth they might obtain salvation through Christ. Moreover it was fitting that children should receive Baptism, in order that being reared from childhood in things pertaining to the Christian mode of life, they may the more easily persevere therein; according to Proverbs 22:5: “A young man according to his way, even when he is old, he will not depart from it.” This reason is also given by Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. iii).

The spiritual regeneration effected by Baptism is somewhat like carnal birth, in this respect, that as the child while in the mother’s womb receives nourishment not independently, but through the nourishment of its mother, so also children before the use of reason, being as it were in the womb of their mother the Church, receive salvation not by their own act, but by the act of the Church. Hence Augustine says (De Pecc. Merit. et Remiss. i): “The Church, our mother, offers her maternal mouth for her children, that they may imbibe the sacred mysteries: for they cannot as yet with their own hearts believe unto justice, nor with their own mouths confess unto salvation . . . And if they are rightly said to believe, because in a certain fashion they make profession of faith by the words of their sponsors, why should they not also be said to repent, since by the words of those same sponsors they evidence their renunciation of the devil and this world?” For the same reason they can be said to intend, not by their own act of intention, since at times they struggle and cry; but by the act of those who bring them to be baptized.

As Augustine says, writing to Boniface (Cont. duas Ep. Pelag. i), “in the Church of our Saviour little children believe through others, just as they contracted from others those sins which are remitted in Baptism.” Nor is it a hindrance to their salvation if their parents be unbelievers, because, as Augustine says, writing to the same Boniface (Ep. xcviii), “little children are offered that they may receive grace in their souls, not so much from the hands of those that carry them (yet from these too, if they be good and faithful) as from the whole company of the saints and the faithful. For they are rightly considered to be offered by those who are pleased at their being offered, and by whose charity they are united in communion with the Holy Ghost.” And the unbelief of their own parents, even if after Baptism these strive to infect them with the worship of demons, hurts not the children. For as Augustine says (Cont. duas Ep. Pelag. i) “when once the child has been begotten by the will of others, he cannot subsequently be held by the bonds of another’s sin so long as he consent not with his will, according to” Ezekiel 18:4: “‘As the soul of the Father, so also the soul of the son is mine; the soul that sinneth, the same shall die.’ Yet he contracted from Adam that which was loosed by the grace of this sacrament, because as yet he was not endowed with a separate existence.” But the faith of one, indeed of the whole Church, profits the child through the operation of the Holy Ghost, Who unites the Church together, and communicates the goods of one member to another. - Summa Theologica III, 68,9
 
Moreover it was fitting that children should receive Baptism, in order that being reared from childhood in things pertaining to the Christian mode of life, they may the more easily persevere therein;

. . . And if they are rightly said to believe, because in a certain fashion they make profession of faith by the words of their sponsors, why should they not also be said to repent, since by the words of those same sponsors they evidence their renunciation of the devil and this world?" For the same reason they can be said to intend, not by their own act of intention, since at times they struggle and cry; but by the act of those who bring them to be baptized.
I appreciate all of your quotes, although I repeat only a few of them above. It is of course true that Baptism remits original sin by its very nature and brings the child into the life of grace. That is why the canon authorizes baptism of a child in danger of death, even in otherwise questionable circumstances.

And yet, the Church does not urge the indiscriminate baptism of any and all children. Why not? Because we do not have a doctrine of “once baptized, always saved.” The child will grow and reach the age of reason. He will at some point accept or reject the grace which was given in baptism. If his faith has not been nurtured by those very people who sought baptism for him, his chances of making a choice for God, and essentially against his parents, are not good. What has he then gained by the baptism, if as a result of an adverse upbringing, he rejects all that it stands for?
 
I think the Family Synod is on track here; we need to much more actively and courageously push Church teaching on same-sex marriage at all levels in the Church. We have to create an alternative environment to the mainstream acceptance. And it has to be for real. There are consequences for not accepting Church teaching. Catholics need to see more and more examples of proactive discipline at the parish level. Defense of Church teaching needs to get into homilies. But do it with honey, not vinegar. Don’t blame/punish the children. Pick your battles. If the Church was visibly seen to meaningfully protect children by defending marriage and the common good (and not just the Bishops), this would greatly discourage these incidents from occurring in the first place, i.e. “Catholics” in same-sex marriages with children. Why not have an informative conference with the “parents” as part of the agreement to baptize? At some point, denying communion for clear offenders of Church teaching has to be on the table. They’re not in communion with the Church anyway. Why go through the motions? (Start with Nancy Pelosi and/or Joe Biden 😉 ) It’s not unlike the situation in Iraq, right? Sitting back and being agreeable is not always in the best interest of the common good. It can really cause a lot pain and chaos you could have avoided with a little determination earlier on.
 
I think the Family Synod is on track here; we need to much more actively and courageously push Church teaching on same-sex marriage at all levels in the Church. We have to create an alternative environment to the mainstream acceptance. And it has to be for real. There are consequences for not accepting Church teaching. Catholics need to see more and more examples of proactive discipline at the parish level. Defense of Church teaching needs to get into homilies. But do it with honey, not vinegar. Don’t blame/punish the children. Pick your battles. If the Church was visibly seen to meaningfully protect children by defending marriage and the common good (and not just the Bishops), this would greatly discourage these incidents from occurring in the first place, i.e. “Catholics” in same-sex marriages with children. Why not have an informative conference with the “parents” as part of the agreement to baptize? At some point, denying communion for clear offenders of Church teaching has to be on the table. They’re not in communion with the Church anyway. Why go through the motions? (Start with Nancy Pelosi and/or Joe Biden 😉 ) It’s not unlike the situation in Iraq, right? Sitting back and being agreeable is not always in the best interest of the common good. It can really cause a lot pain and chaos you could have avoided with a little determination earlier on.
It sounds like what the article from the orginal post is saying. Same sex couples bringing a child for Baptism are going to assessed more thoroughly about their intention and probably educated through that process to a degree.

"But on the central question of whether the change would alter the number of babies baptized, King responded in an email, “If a parent is sincere in presenting a child for baptism, no. We believe that baptism is the entrance into a new life in Christ and His Church, open to all.”

In the memo, Bartylla says there are “a plethora of difficulties, challenges, and considerations associated with these unnatural unions (including scandal) linked with the baptism of a child, and such considerations touch upon theology, canon law, pastoral approach, liturgical adaptation, and sacramental recording.”

Thus, he concludes, “please seek consultation and coordination with the office of the vicar general, since each case must be evaluated individually.”
 
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.
Just my thoughts exactly. What hope is there for a gay couple to ‘regularize’ their situation? It puts them in a quandry. Do they tell the child that their union is just an ‘irregularity’ that the Church has not yet fully come to terms with yet? I guess you would call that picking and choosing which form of ‘Catholicism’ they are professing. I see this as a bombshell waiting to explode.
 
seakelp;

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.

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.

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
Wow, well I am surely glad they didn’t apply that rule to my parents. They were divorced and remarried. Long story short, mother’s 1st husband was in the service and never came back, but never declared dead either. That was in the day and age that annulments were not handed out like candy. My parents raised us STRICTLY Catholic. Catholic school…confession every 2 weeks…and in that day and age we went to Mass in school DAILY. It wasn’t this once a week or once a month garbage that the ‘Catholic’ schools are dishing out now. They were faithful Catholics that never received the sacraments. In our minds as children, we didn’t think our parents were ‘co habitating’. They were MARRIED. But we knew they were not married in the Church for that reason.
If that would have applied to my parents, who knows where I would be today? I thank God the Church allowed my parents to baptize us all in the Catholic Church. And raise us in the faith. I thank God daily for the wonderful gift of faith passed on to me by my parents.

This all said, I do think they are taking the correct approach on this. They need to consider individual cases. Children need the chance to be raised in the faith. They need the grace of Baptism. But at the same time it’s worrisome in these cases. The child will be raised in a completely unnatural way. Gay sexual relationships are against natural law which is God’s law. You cannot tell me it’s the same as being raised in a heterosexual home. It would be very confusing for the child to learn of what the Church has been proclaiming an ‘intrinsic evil’ that their parents are living. Just not quite the same as a single mother or a divorced and remarried couple. It’s also opening the door to something akin to Church ‘Blessings’. A slippery slope in my mind and quite a corner that the Church finds itself in.
 
Longing Soul,

Using EF quotes via picking and choosing can be just as dangerous as using bible verses apart from the context of their authoritative interpreters. It appears that you are taking these quotes to mean that anybody and everybody ought to be baptized at any opportunity possible.

So I take that to it’s logical conclusion. My atheist neighbors ask us to babysit their kids. By your logic, should we baptize them without permission? If not, why not?
 
Longing Soul,

Using EF quotes via picking and choosing can be just as dangerous as using bible verses apart from the context of their authoritative interpreters. It appears that you are taking these quotes to mean that anybody and everybody ought to be baptized at any opportunity possible.

So I take that to it’s logical conclusion. My atheist neighbors ask us to babysit their kids. By your logic, should we baptize them without permission? If not, why not?
I’m am simply defending the position of the Church as per the original article. There is a phenomenon now that I had never seen in the Church 50 years ago… where some Catholics feel more qualified than the Pope and the Magisterium, to define Catholicity. This kind of ‘more Catholic than the Pope’ attitude’ sees members of the laity take words or decisions of the clergy even who are completely orthodox like Pope Francis, and basically decide they are just opinions or ignorant deviations from Catholic teaching, unlike their own highly right knowlegde of the Catholic Church. I am NOT using Thomas Aquinas to go against the Church. I used his words to defend the Church as per the original article against the attitude that the Church is just wrong.
 
So no explanation for why I shouldn’t baptize the atheist neighbor’s kids?

I’m certainly for submitting to authoritative interpretations. But it’s my understanding that authoritative interpretations is that there be a well founded hope that the child will be raised in the faith. If the parents involved will be insisting on teaching the child that something evil is something good, is that a well founded hope? Doesn’t seem like it to me.

I do readily admit that I don’t call these shots. I just like to reason along so as to conform my mind, not just my will.
 
So no explanation for why I shouldn’t baptize the atheist neighbor’s kids?
Who was suggesting that we should stealthily baptise all and sundry outside of the whole meaning of baptism and the Church community?

To give an analogy of what you are suggesting which is essentially religious imperialism… in Australia for the last 50 years, we’ve been dealing with a thing we call ‘the stolen generation’. It began a century ago with the policy that aboriginal children weren’t fed, clothed and educated to the standard of whites, so the children were stealthily or violently removed from the tribes and placed in white families and raised as white people. The ramifications of that policy are still being felt today in the aboriginal community. Of course every child has a right to food, clothes and education, but at the same time, one group who feels they know a superior way, does not have the right to ignore and trample on family and tribal boundaries to impose those standards. If people come asking for help for their community, that help is given without unreasonable strings attached to it, because we, as human beings, don’t have the right to demand ‘conversion’. We are not superior to others who come looking for the ‘food of life’ either… we are simply blessed by grace to be further along the road of knowledge and faith. We are not ‘there’ yet though. We are also still growing and as such, we have to respect the journey of others whatever stage they are at.

If people come looking for Baptism for their child, aware of its meaning and the grace if gives, why do we have any power to deny it to them based on their personal sins? This is what the original article stresses. Leaving those decisions to the archdiocese is very wise. It takes it out of our hands because our opinions are often influenced by a modern version of religious imperialism rather than truth.
I’m certainly for submitting to authoritative interpretations. But it’s my understanding that authoritative interpretations is that there be a well founded hope that the child will be raised in the faith. If the parents involved will be insisting on teaching the child that something evil is something good, is that a well founded hope? Doesn’t seem like it to me.
This is why it should be left to the archdiocese to assess on a case by case basis. If you re-read the article it identifies all the implications of such situations and sees it as an opportunity to have contact with people in regards to the meaning of baptising a child.
 
I’m am simply defending the position of the Church as per the original article. There is a phenomenon now that I had never seen in the Church 50 years ago… where some Catholics feel more qualified than the Pope and the Magisterium, to define Catholicity. .
In all fairness, we can also say that in our lifetime, we have never before experienced such confusion in the matters of faith. When a prominent Archbishop clearly states that the Church has abrogated her teaching role and we hear discrepancy and inconsistencies rather than a united voice from the shepherds, what are we to do? The modern RCIA programs are especially guilty of promulgating outright error. I frequently find myself going back to the older catechisms and resources because within them, I find clarity. The faithful do have the right to clear and concise teaching and at the present moment, I do not find that happening.
 
Wow, well I am surely glad they didn’t apply that rule to my parents. They were divorced and remarried. Long story short, mother’s 1st husband was in the service and never came back, but never declared dead either. That was in the day and age that annulments were not handed out like candy. My parents raised us STRICTLY Catholic. Catholic school…confession every 2 weeks…and in that day and age we went to Mass in school DAILY. It wasn’t this once a week or once a month garbage that the ‘Catholic’ schools are dishing out now. They were faithful Catholics that never received the sacraments. In our minds as children, we didn’t think our parents were ‘co habitating’. They were MARRIED. But we knew they were not married in the Church for that reason.
My first thought was divorce. I know that in this day and age that homosexuality hold greater scandal, but I think that is more our issue than that of the Church. Even if the situation is not as understandable and pastoral as the one above (desertion), if one parent is willing to take the responsibility to raise their child Catholic (obviously two women can’t both be the parents) then there is no need for them to be perfect. The child needs baptism. I think handling this at the diocesan level has its advantages and am glad this bishop is taking the reigns and moving on in best interest of the child.
 
But it shouldn’t impose that same penalty on your kid.
Baptism of an infant, absent a Christian upbringing, is not beneficial, and brings other consequences. There is not a penalty in denying baptism in that case. Were such baptisms to benefit infants, we should be moved to baptize (in secret) the infants of non-Catholics whenever the opportunity presents.
 
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
I would say that at least 80% of baptisms celebrated in our parish are for children of parents who are cohabiting. In many cases so are the godparents. I’ve asked the present pastor how couples like that can stand in front of the parish and ‘renounce sin’ when they have no intention of changing their situation. He simply said ‘I know’ and rolled his eyes.

I remember one couple in particular. As I went over the Renunciation of Sins and Profession of Faith at the rehearsal, they joked with the godparents about being in sin due to their marital status. And the next morning, they went up to Communion with everyone else.

Unless the Pastor is willing to refuse to give them Communion I don’t see how he can refuse to baptize their children.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top