Trying to understand why Church allows baptism for children raised by gay couples

  • Thread starter Thread starter maliya
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Loud-living-dogma said:
How is that equivalent to people engaged in a mockery of marriage?
Click to expand...
How can you be certain that gays who marry are doing it to “make a mockery of marriage”? If a gay couple has children, it behooves them to ensure their union has some legal protections, if not for them, then for the sake of the children. Until there was “gay marriage” (I agree it’s an oxymoron), there were “civil unions” that gays could contract for that purpose. However in some places, like my jurisdiction, civil unions do not confer the same rights as marriage.

The only way to ensure those rights, and the only legal mechanism, is marriage (in this case, necessarily civil). So it isn’t so much the couple making “mockery” of marriage, but the State. In a civil union in my jurisdiction for instance, retirement accounts (“RRSPs”, sort of like US 401k) are taxable when they are transferred to a non-spouse, but can be transferred tax-free between spouses. It isn’t a negligible amount. It’s deemed taxable in one lump at time of death. So someone with, say, a retirement account of $500k, which can generate about $20k in pension income annually, would be taxable at the highest rate and drop to $250k, thus generating only $10k in annual income. That’s not small potatoes. But if the couple are legally married (leaving sacramentality out of it for a moment), the whole $500k passes on to the spouse, still sheltered from tax.

This applies equally to heterosexuals or homosexuals. You could see a similar case in for instance, a heterosexual couple who cannot marry because, say, they are unable to engage in the conjugal act (e.g. a elderly couple, both widowed). They would be well advised to enter into a civil union to protect their legal rights, even though the Church does not recognize the validity of their marriage.

I wouldn’t, therefore, presume to know the state of a gay couple’s mind who turn up to have their children baptized.

And regardless of the condition of their souls, it is most certainly not the infant making a mockery of marriage. Personally I think the biggest mockery of marriage is no-fault divorce, not a legal provision aimed at only 5% of the population. But that’s another discussion for another time.
 
prayerrider said:
Well, in classical Catholic moral theology there is one sexual sin (maybe two) that’s worse than homosexual intercourse, if that’s any consolation.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you’re referring to this idea?

en.wikipedia.org

Sins that cry to Heaven for Vengeance - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Note that “The injustice to the wage earner’: taking advantage of and defrauding workers” makes the list, as well.

You might find this interesting:

Middle School lesson​

Catholic Living
40.png
Middle School lesson Catholic Living
That is correct. Jewish research and writing have pointed out that the capital sin of Sodom was NOT male homosexuality but rather its inhospitality and cruelty toward the poor and needy. The inhabitants of Sodom were unwilling to share their abundance of resources with those less fortunate than themselves. This indifference toward the needy was at the time and still is today considered a great sin in Judaism. However, zealots in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all believe that the sin of Sod…
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
No, I wasn’t actually referring to that. I’m referring to the classical Catholic moral theological taxonomy of sexual sins.
It’s a classification that is being watered down by those who wish the Church to accommodate secular “morality.”
 
I’ll let you research the taxonomy of sexual sins. It may not be presented as such in the current Catechism. May still be taught in Catholic Moral Theology courses at colleges that are Ex Corde Ecclesia. Still unsurpassed in logic and reflection of divine and natural law. Not that everyone believes in either of those, anymore.
One thing is a big modernist lie: all sins are equal in gravity.
 
Last edited:
So you refuse to site your source that says the Catholic Church now teaches that the sin of homosexuality is one of the gravest of all sins?
 
Last edited:
OraLabora said:
There really does seem to be a shortage of charity towards gays…
Click to expand...
In this thread there are only two people currently active that seem so, but their anger might be directed at the sin only which isn’t bad of itself.
 
Last edited:
The problem is the relentless efforts to downgrade or even eliminate the sinfulness of homosexual intercourse. It is the only sexual sin that seems to generate such efforts.
 
Last edited:
If you sincerely want to learn more about classical Catholic moral theology and the taxonomy of sexual sins, you can make the effort. I truly don’t have time to act as anyone’s research assistant. Sorry, but I’m very busy.
 
Last edited:
Why blame the poor kid who got adopted? It’s not like they had a choice in the matter. I don’t get the idea of denying the sacrament of baptism to a kid simply because they were adopted by a him + him or a her + her. I understand the obligations of the parents, but seriously, to deny the kid something?
 
In debates the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim.
 
Last edited:
I know all about classical moral theology.

I am asking you to site a source that says the Church still adhears to such a taxonomy of sins. And how do you reconcile what that Catechism now says about homosexual persons and treating them with dignity and respect?
 
Last edited:
That’s right. It’s the sin that some very well known agitators don’t think should be considered so sinful anymore. Maybe not sinful at all. That is another kind of sin, to promote error and dissent.
As far as a “debate,” there is none. I adhere to a decidedly Thomistic moral theology. It’s only taught anymore in Ex Corde Ecclesia colleges. It is not followed by modernists. That doesn’t mean it’s not still embedded in the Catechism.
 
Last edited:
You gain nothing and lose credibility if you keep up that sort of attitude.
 
Last edited:
I figure LLD was just funnin’ about. Made me laugh, anyway!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top