Madison diocese changes process for baptism of children of same-sex couples

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mimi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You mean the church should refuse baptism of children because their parents are of the same sex? :confused:
 
I am in support of baptizing children cursed with same sex parents. It is not their fault for their parents sin, why punish them by denying them the Sacraments? Jesus said to let the children come to Him. Besides, a Sacramental life might be the difference between that child growing up normal or being encouraged to explore his/her sexuality by his/her parents. It’s also not impossible that being close to the Church (though not receiving communion), the same sex parents might open their hearts to the Holy Spirit and end their sinful relationship. I know that’s probably not likely, but small hope is better than no hope. Homosexuals are just as welcome at Church as heterosexuals. None who sin can receive the Eucharist, gay or straight. I understand people’s distaste for this decision, but I support it. The children need Christ in their life so that they have a better chance of not ending up in the same sinful situation their parent chose.
 
I firmly believe we should allow the baptism of children of same sex couples, and I believe this for the following reasons:
  1. We should not keep the gates of Heaven sealed shut because of the sins of their parents.
  2. We can not say with full confidence that the parents’ sinful lifestyle will forever be continued. We do not know if they will repent, convert their ways, what have you.
  3. See rule number 1.
I stand with the Church 100% on her views of homosexuality and on her views of Marriage. I am in no way supporting same sex unions. I can not, however, wrap my mind around banishing their children from the beatific vision because their parents were in a state of mortal sin. This does not compute.
 
I mean, I know that it is extremely important that the parents fully understand the meaning of a Catholic Baptism and are good role models in the faith. However, I don’t think that you should deny something that is necessary for salvation to an innocent child whose only mistake is being adopted by a homosexual couple.

May God bless you all! 🙂
 
The issue is, if parents/“parents” are living in such a publicly wrong state, then how can there be any hope that the child will be raised according to the faith?

“Johnny, you have two daddies, but that’s wrong.” Yeah right.
 
I agree with the Church’s wisdom in requiring practicing parents for infant baptism. If not, then there is no incentive for parents to consider their sinful lifestyles, and not even a shred of hope that a child will be instructed in the Faith.

Baptism is important, vital, and yet, if that baptismal innocence is knowingly left unprotected from the start, we’re setting up the child for disaster, and the parents for even more guilt at their particular judgments.

Why this mania constantly to go diametrically against what the Church has used the wisdom of Her age and experience to put in place?
 
YoungTradCath said:
The issue is, if parents/“parents” are living in such a publicly wrong state, then how can there be any hope that the child will be raised according to the faith?

“Johnny, you have two daddies, but that’s wrong.” Yeah right.
Click to expand...
Well, then, the Church should also not baptize children of divorced and remarried parents unless there has been an annulment and convalidation. Nor should the Church baptize the children of those who are co-habitating or who are in LTR’s that include regular pre-marital sex or those who are in socially public disagreement with the Church re: abortion, contraception, gay marriage,IVF, etc. I mean, those are all parents who are poor examples of Catholicism who would seem unlikely to raise their children in the faith since they are such sinners.

Or maybe, just maybe, if a gay couple wants their child baptized it means they want to raise their child with the Sacraments because they love their child and their faith even though they are committing grave sins. Just like the rest of us have done/do.
 
Mimi said:
Story here:
In the Spirit: Catholic diocese changes process for baptism of children of same-sex couples

I just do not understand how they could even consider allowing baptism of a child of a same-sex couple since neither of them could possibly be a ‘practicing’ Catholic. 😦

Bishop Morlino is so orthodox in all else (which I appreciate).

We are being tested, perhaps.

Mimi
Click to expand...
I don’t know where to begin!
  1. Charity is why we should baptize these children. The unrighteousness of the parents should not be the determining factor in the offering of the sanctifying grace of God. We should be in the business of opening the gates to salvation, not blocking the way!
  2. There are plenty of “practicing” Catholics with plenty of sin. We call ourselves “practicing Catholics” because we are sinful, and we don’t have righteousness down pat just yet…otherwise we would be called Saints right now, instead of just Catholics!
  3. The Bishop could not be acting any more Orthodox in following the lessons the Lord laid down for us in the Gospel, by baptizing these children.
  4. Well, I think you got that one right…Perhaps we are being tested. But by bring children to Him, instead of impeding them from finding Him, I would think God would give us an A+.
Peace and all Good!
 
Two issues:

First the baptismal rite.

*The celebrant speaks to the parents in these or similar words:
You have asked to have your child baptized. In doing so you are accepting the responsibility of training him (her) in the practice of the faith. It will be your duty to bring him (her) up to keep God’s commandments as Christ taught us, by loving God and our neighbor. Do you clearly understand what you are undertaking?

Parents: We do.
*

Secondly, the article points to this:
“As is the case with any child, outside the situation of danger of death, when a parent, or the person who lawfully holds their place, gives consent to and presents the child for baptism, and 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.”

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#ixzz377SN9d67

So it looks like the Bishop may be centralizing the decision making process so as to minimize legal culpability for each Priest.
 
MJJean said:
Well, then, the Church should also not baptize children of divorced and remarried parents unless there has been an annulment and convalidation. Nor should the Church baptize the children of those who are co-habitating or who are in LTR’s that include regular pre-marital sex or those who are in socially public disagreement with the Church re: abortion, contraception, gay marriage,IVF, etc. I mean, those are all parents who are poor examples of Catholicism who would seem unlikely to raise their children in the faith since they are such sinners.

Or maybe, just maybe, if a gay couple wants their child baptized it means they want to raise their child with the Sacraments because they love their child and their faith even though they are committing grave sins. Just like the rest of us have done/do.
Click to expand...
But it’s not even about the sin, it’s about publicly flouting things, which leads one to ask why there should be any hope that such a person/people would even want to pass the faith on properly to children.

I mean that’s just illogical. I know people aren’t perfect little logical automaton machines and people often don’t see what’s right in front of their noses, people often don’t see the illogicality of their beliefs even if it’s shoved right in their faces, but still.

It would be more respectable for somebody to say, “Yes, I’ve had six abortions and I know it’s wrong but I really don’t care. However, I know, intellectually, that salvation is given through the Catholic Church, I’m convinced of these truths even though I don’t and probably never will live up to it. Therefore, I want my kid here to be baptized and grow up in the Church.” That’s more respectable and believable than these little half-truth tip-toe-touch-and-go games. Maybe it’s not more respectable, but it’s at least infinitely more logical.

What I’m asking is how in fact anybody can have a founded hope that parents in these situations will raise their kids in the faith? How is it possible to have that hope? What indications exist that support this hope? It’s a serious question, nothing complicated, a bulleted answer would work, like this:

“These are some signs of a founded hope that parents will raise their children in the faith properly even though they, nevertheless, are grieviously and publicly in error:
a. sfidsfsndf
b. riojehi
c. sdkjhrewiorho”

I’m not “judging” or whatever anybody might want to say, I’m just curious how there can be a hope here. It all seems pretty hopeless to me.

If the answer is, “We can have a hope just by the fact that parents ask for baptism,” then my next question is, why is there even a canon about it at all? It exists for a reason obviously.
 
YoungTradCath said:
But it’s not even about the sin, it’s about publicly flouting things, which leads one to ask why there should be any hope that such a person/people would even want to pass the faith on properly to children.

I mean that’s just illogical. I know people aren’t perfect little logical automaton machines and people often don’t see what’s right in front of their noses, people often don’t see the illogicality of their beliefs even if it’s shoved right in their faces, but still.

It would be more respectable for somebody to say, “Yes, I’ve had six abortions and I know it’s wrong but I really don’t care. However, I know, intellectually, that salvation is given through the Catholic Church, I’m convinced of these truths even though I don’t and probably never will live up to it. Therefore, I want my kid here to be baptized and grow up in the Church.” That’s more respectable and believable than these little half-truth tip-toe-touch-and-go games. Maybe it’s not more respectable, but it’s at least infinitely more logical.

What I’m asking is how in fact anybody can have a founded hope that parents in these situations will raise their kids in the faith? How is it possible to have that hope? What indications exist that support this hope? It’s a serious question, nothing complicated, a bulleted answer would work, like this:

“These are some signs of a founded hope that parents will raise their children in the faith properly even though they, nevertheless, are grieviously and publicly in error:
a. sfidsfsndf
b. riojehi
c. sdkjhrewiorho”

I’m not “judging” or whatever anybody might want to say, I’m just curious how there can be a hope here. It all seems pretty hopeless to me.

If the answer is, “We can have a hope just by the fact that parents ask for baptism,” then my next question is, why is there even a canon about it at all? It exists for a reason obviously.
Click to expand...
It would be rather curious if on the one hand, we require 9 to 12 months of instruction for adult catechumens before administering the sacrament of baptism, as we do, and on the other hand, baptize any infant even if there is no hope whatever that the child will be raised Catholic.

A further consideration comes to mind: Suppose the parish gives the same sex couple the benefit of the doubt, as to their intent to raise the child Catholic. Maybe they send the child to Catholic school. Now, with a child in school, they again approach the parish requesting to be ‘married’ in the Church. “After all, this is the parish that baptized our child and has enrolled him in school. Why can’t it marry us?”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top