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.
I was Baptized as an infant. My parents agreed to raise me in the Church.
They tried, but for whatever reason, only known to them, we stopped going to Church when I was about 5.

My mom reconciled with the Church when I was 12 (Dad was Episcopalian) and we started going again, but as soon as I was old enough (18) I was gone. And did not set foot in a Catholic Church for almost 15 years.

My husband, also Baptized as an infant, went to Catholic school, served at the Altar all the way through his first year of college, until he left.

I returned to the Church about 10 years ago, in part because that’s where my “roots” were. I am an “Irish-Italian American Catholic” it wasn’t just my religion, it was part of who I was.

My husband has not yet returned. It is, in part, because of Catholics like many on this thread, who are so legalistic and dogmatic that they forget to be good and kind.

So, just my little anecdote here proves that even the best, most holy, most orthodox parents, will not always be successful.

So, I will ask again, to those who are proposing waiting, should the Church just give up Baptizing infants altogether?
 
Last edited:
Well it’s a teaching of the Church. Bring it up to the Vatican if you feel you need to.
 
What are you talking about?

The teaching is a “well founded hope”, not an assurance.

I just proved in my anecdote that even the most orthodox parents fail sometimes.

And you have not answered my question-
Do you disagree with the Church on the Baptism of infants?
 
I am linking this thread because I think it is very insightful.
Here, you have many people condoning and actually endorsing the Baptism of a child who’s parents are not even Catholic, and then we have this thread, wanting to deny Baptism to children of Catholics we deem to be not “good enough”.

So, if it is all well and good to Baptize a child who’s parents aren’t even Catholic, how does that fall into the “well founded hope” rule?

Anyone???
40.png
Baptism against parents' wishes Liturgy and Sacraments
Hi folks. Recently there have been a number of threads on lay people baptising babies/young children when the parents have expressly stated that they do not wish their child baptised. Thankfully we all agree that this is a no no. But it has been said on these threads that this is acceptable if the child is in danger of death. Why do folks feel this? If the parents say no, why is it any different if the child is very sick and may die. And what would be the plan if the child survives - would the…
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
CilladeRoma said:
So, I will ask again, to those who are proposing waiting, should the Church just give up Baptizing infants altogether?
Click to expand...
No. There are two extremes here. 1. Don’t baptize any infant. Let them reach an age where they can decide for themselves that they wish to enter the Church. 2. Baptize every infant, no matter the circumstances. The grace of the sacrament will somehow assure that the child will eventually embrace the Faith.

The Church accepts infant Baptism. A Catholic family ought to have their children baptized into the Faith as soon as practical. The child becomes a member of the Church, receives the grace of Baptism, and is assured of instruction in the Faith by his or her parents, whose Faith stands in for the child at baptism.

The Church doesn’t ask all parents of whatever denomination or lifestyle to have their children baptized. They do ask Catholic parents to baptize their children and promise to raise them in the Faith. There must be a founded hope that the child will be raised in the Faith. Baptism alone is neither a guarantee of salvation nor a magical assurance of future catechesis. A child should not be inducted in the Church without some assurance that the child will indeed be raised in the Catholic Faith.
 
I fully agree with the Church on the baptism of infants! Do you? Is there Canon law on this subject if children should have baptism delayed due to no/ little hope of being raised Catholic?
 
JimG said:
A child should not be inducted in the Church without some assurance that the child will indeed be raised in the Catholic Faith.
Click to expand...
What assurance will be good enough?

My parents agreed, something happened and I was not “raised in the faith”.

My husbands parents agreed, raised him in the faith, were very orthodox themselves, and not him or one of his siblings is a practicing Catholic today.

So, again, stuff happens. So maybe, we should just leave it to the priest to do what he has been trained to do and stop questioning whether someone “deserves” it or not.
 
But what does “raised Catholic” mean to the Church?

My husband and his siblings were raised in the Church, went to a very orthodox Catholic school, had very orthodox, devout parents and grandparents, and not one of them (there are 6) is a practicing Catholic now.

So, what exactly is “well founded hope”? My in-laws thought they had it, but obviously not?
Should the Church “punish” my M-I-L know, because she “failed” in her duty?
 
CilladeRoma said:
So, again, stuff happens. So maybe, we should just leave it to the priest to do what he has been trained to do and stop questioning whether someone “deserves” it or not.
Click to expand...
Yes, in fact we do leave it to the priest to make this decision whether or not to baptize. And priests tend to resolve any doubts in favor of the child’s baptism if possible. I think that in making a request for their child’s baptism, parents undertake a serious obligation.
 
I was received into the Catholic 29 years ago. This thread reminds me of why I left the Catholic Church for three years and attended an Episcopal parish. I had problems with the doctrine, but not with the spirit of the parish.

After leaving the Episcopal church over parish politics and doctrinal issues, I stayed away from the Catholic church for a number of years. I now attend a Franciscan parish. The friars are wonderful and compassionate. It’s made all the difference.

I finally feel Catholic again.
 
But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
 
njlisa said:
The friars are wonderful and compassionate. It’s made all the difference.
Click to expand...
Similar experience with me. I was raised Catholic by a Catholic mother and Anglican father; they married with all the dispensations and agreement to raise the offspring as Catholics. It was a duty my father took so seriously that he would take me to Mass if my mother couldn’t. Went to a good Catholic school that taught the French-Canadian equivalent of the Baltimore Catechism. Stopped going to church at 17, and that lasted 22 years. Came back almost 22 years ago (as many years back in as I was out).

I live in what tends to be a very liberal area (Québec). I became a Benedictine oblate and now mostly go to Mass there. Same observation as you, the monks are wonderful and compassionate.
Loud-living-dogma said:
I know that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church, but I fear that many individuals will be led down the primrose path. If the Church is not clear about teaching Truth, then many will be confused and do bad things.
Click to expand...
It’s the risk we must take to be a universal Church. Bottom line is that we are responsible for our own salvation. People grow in faith all the time, and that works best in the Church, not outside of it. Conversion is a life-long story, it takes a lifetime to make a saint. Any monk worth his salt will tell you that it is something you grow in, and doctrines one might find difficult today become clearer as one grows in faith.

The risk is that some will succeed, some will fail. I can guarantee one thing though, the chance of success is much greater in the Church, than outside of it.
 
Last edited:
And there is also “hope” that a not very orthodox or even regularly practicing Catholic will family will succeed.
 
Elf01 said:
I would not say it would be a well founded hope though.
Click to expand...
The church has not given us a definition of « well founded hope ». She leaves it up to her pastors to judge each case on its merits. It is not up to untrained lay members of the Church to fill in the definition.

If some pastors err on the side of charity towards the infant in spite of the indifference of the parents, well you can never go wrong erring on the side of charity, especially with sacramental grace for an innocent infant.

Saint Paul has a lot to say about rules without charity being clanging cymbals and all that. It woul behoove all of us to read up on those verses again.

I would not want to be standing at the pearly gates trying to answer why I was so uncharitable towards the littlest and most vulnerable of God’s people. When we do it for the least of God’s children, we are doing it to Christ Himself, Christ teaches us in the Bible. Let’s not end up with the goats.
 
Once my wife and I were asked to be godparents for the baptism of her nephew, who lived in a different state. His mother was opposed to the baptism because she did not believe in the Catholic Church. But she was willing to go along with the father’s request for baptism. He did not attend church either, but said he wanted to give the child “every possible advantage.” At the pre-baptism interview, the priest became aware of the situation. In response to a question about godparents, I gave the standard reply that godparents are to assist in raising the child Catholic. The priest replied that that was virtually not possible, since most godparents had no influence and no contact. That was certainly true in this case. Nevertheless, the priest agreed to baptize the child.

As far as I know, neither parent has attended church since then. The child, now an adult, received no religious training, and does not attend church. My wife has since died. Now, who is going to be answerable to God for this person’s lack of religious upbringing? Me?
 
OraLabora said:
40.png
Loud-living-dogma:
I know that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church, but I fear that many individuals will be led down the primrose path. If the Church is not clear about teaching Truth, then many will be confused and do bad things.
Click to expand...
It’s the risk we must take to be a universal Church. Bottom line is that we are responsible for our own salvation. People grow in faith all the time, and that works best in the Church, not outside of it. Conversion is a life-long story, it takes a lifetime to make a saint. Any monk worth his salt will tell you that it is something you grow in, and doctrines one might find difficult today become clearer as one grows in faith.

The risk is that some will succeed, some will fail. I can guarantee one thing though, the chance of success is much greater in the Church, than outside of it.
Click to expand...
Hmm - - trying to figure out what you mean by “it’s the risk we must take to be a universal Church”. What is? Teaching unclearly? Why is that a risk we must take to be a universal church, or for any other reason? Why does the Church have to teach unclearly?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top