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.
Well, who said they became parents on purpose? Also if you don’t understand the Catholic view on ss"marriage" you could try reading up on it. Because your instruction on that seems a bit … lacking. It’s not your job to rank parents seeking baptism for their children, but it is your role as a Catholic to try to understand Church teaching.
 
Last edited:
Loud-living-dogma said:
Well, who said they became parents on purpose? Also if you don’t understand the Catholic view on ss"marriage" you could try reading up on it. Because your instruction on that seems a bit … lacking. It’s not your job to rank parents seeking baptism for their children, but it is your role as a Catholic to try to understand Church teaching.
Click to expand...
Why, pray tell, do you think I don’t understand Church teaching? Please use quotations where applicable.
 
Too much to delve into on my phone. Perhaps you are being a bit disingenuous in this reply.
 
I’m certainly not being disingenuous. My entire life would be completely different if I weren’t Catholic. I follow NFP and do not use birth control. I care about Church teaching. Please explain how I am ignorant.
 
Do you understand the concept of scandal in Catholic teaching? Do you agree with the importance and meaning of it?
 
Yes, and yes.

Let me ask you a question, Loud-living. Suppose that you’re a priest. Someone that you believed to be a divorced mother scheduled a baptism, and then when she arrived, she arrived on the arm of a man who was not her husband. They interacted like a couple. Would you cancel the baptism?

What I don’t dispute here is that the actions of the woman are scandalous. My question, however, is not about the actions of the woman. My question is about the PRIEST and his actions.
 
Last edited:
Well I would certainly ask for more information! Everything would depend on the answers to the questions for sure! I’m sure it would be common practice to delay baptism (does that mean denial in your eyes?) until the family situation is in accord with church teaching.
 
Do you see the difference that a divorced couple may already have had an annulment, or they may be in process of getting one, or may be capable of being in a regularized situation in the future, but a gay “marriage” can NEVER be regularized in the Church? Do you understand and agree with that difference, Prodigal?
 
Last edited:
Loud-living-dogma said:
Do you see the difference that a divorced couple may already have had an annulment, or they may be in process of getting one, or may be capable of being in a regularized situation in the future, but a gay “marriage” can NEVER be regularized in the Church? Do you understand and agree with that difference, Prodigal?
Click to expand...
There are no gay marriages, according to the Church. An alleged gay marriage can certainly be regularized: these people can be two friends, whether or not they live together.

Of course, I always presumed that only one of the parents would be listed on the baptismal certificate. (The Church cannot act as if a child can have, say, two mothers). But if the gay couple was fine with that, I would consider baptism appropriate, absolutely.
 
Last edited:
Loud-living-dogma said:
I’m sure it would be common practice to delay baptism (does that mean denial in your eyes?) until the family situation is in accord with church teaching.
Click to expand...
I’m very unsure that that would be common practice. Indeed, I doubt you could find a dozen priests who have delayed baptism, in such circumstances.
 
Prodigal_Son said:
40.png
Loud-living-dogma:
I’m sure it would be common practice to delay baptism (does that mean denial in your eyes?) until the family situation is in accord with church teaching.
Click to expand...
I’m very unsure that that would be common practice. Indeed, I doubt you could find a dozen priests who have delayed baptism, in such circumstances.
Click to expand...
You’re not exactly complimenting our priests…🤔
 
I 100% agree! To punish the child and refuse his/her admittance into the Body of Christ because of his parents “sins” puts a dangerous precedent in place.

Im desperately hoping there’s something else involved in this situation and it’s not solely that they are a gay couple (you know how media is these days with sensationalism).

If not, they could come on over to the Episcopal Church and still get validly baptised with all the ceremony of the Catholic Church. 😃

I had the honor of witnessing the baptism of two children of gay families last year. It was so special and the babies were absolutely adorable!
 
It’s the gay-“married” parents who are denying their child baptism in the church. Their openly sinful and scandalous lifestyle makes baptism in the Church impossible until the parent (s) clean up their act.
 
I still don’t understand how their “sins” should affect the child though.

He has every right to he baptized.

Would the same apply for divorced parents, or married parents of a child conceived or born out wedlock, or unmarried parents?

It seems like such a strange rule, if so
 
Last edited:
You want to rehash all this again? Just read the first 298 posts of this thread, if you care to.
 
All I’ve been reading here is that the parents are so bad and scandalous with their bedroom activities that the Church can’t admit their children.

I understand that gay marriage is unable to be recognized by the Catholic church at the moment, and how that certain activities in the bedroom are mortally sinful, per the Church.

However to say that my, or any of our sins, should affect our children’s salvation makes no sense to me, and frankly, simply sounds vindictive.
 
Last edited:
Or, how about a child who was born using IVF or some other practice not approved by the Church.

@Loud-living-dogma, should that child be refused Baptism because his/her parents “broke the rules”?

And if not, how is it any different than a gay couple? You can’t go back and re-conceive the child naturally.
 
CilladeRoma said:
And if not, how is it any different than a gay couple? You can’t go back and re-conceive the child naturally.
Click to expand...
And there is the difference. A couple in an irregular situation can marry or separate and imo should get their relationship in line with Church teaching to have their children baptized. Or the child can come to RCIA when they become an adult.

I would baptize a child conceived through IVF but not a minor whose parents openly opposed the teaching on IVF.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top