There has been some interesting coverage in the news recently regarding the Church’s stance on baptizing children conceived or reared in irregular situations.Posted on 06/30/2014 3:31:39 AM PDT by markomalley
There has been some interesting coverage in the news recently regarding the Church’s stance on baptizing children conceived or reared in irregular situations.
In recent decades there has been an explosion in the number of children conceived and born outside of Holy Matrimony. The general approach of the Church has been to baptize these children as long as there is no evidence of an ongoing rejection of the Church teaching that sexual intimacy is reserved for marriage. While people may have fallen in weakness, the presumption was that they at least accepted the norm and were going to try to live by it.
If the “couple” in question were living together outside of marriage, the baptism was handled discreetly and the couple was counseled to cease fornication.
It is not certain that every pastor admonished couples as he should but this was (and is) the general policy.
Enter the new and ever more frequent problem of same sex “couples” presenting a child for baptism, and now the stakes get higher. Why? Because of the visibility of the sin involved. At the baptism ceremony, one can at least presume that a single mother has repented of fornication. But it is hard to presume that a homosexual “couple” living together openly, in a culture that has suddenly decided to “celebrate” their “lifestyle,” is making a similar admission of the wrongness of their past behavior. It is also difficult to presume that many who attend the baptism have clarity on the aberrance of homosexual acts.
Thus the Church finds herself in a deeper quandary regarding how to baptize children being brought up in irregular situations that are far more public, situations that bespeak acceptance and even celebration of something the Church must oppose.
Discretion is the operative word. We still have every reason try to baptize children in these irregular situations; after all, it is not the fault of the child. However we must balance the common good of avoiding scandal with the individual good of each child by seeking to handle these baptisms discreetly, giving no opportunity for public confusion regarding what we must reasonably and biblically oppose (same-sex unions).
Here are some excerpts from an article that was in the Washington Post this past Saturday along with my comments in plain red text. (The full text of the article is here: New Battleground?.)
… Catholic leaders have carefully, if quietly, avoided doing anything to block gay couples from having their children baptized … And this is for the good of the child, who is not guilty of the sins of parents, guardians, or caretakers. It is not to be seen as an affirmation of the sins of the adults involved, whether this be due to homosexual acts, fornication, or adultery.
The default position for most bishops … is that if the parents pledge to raise the child Catholic, then no girl or boy should be refused baptism.
They generally let parish priests make the final call and let them administer the sacrament, though it is usually done in a private ceremony with the biological parent—not the adoptive mother or father—listed on the baptismal certificate.
The honest truth is that most priests have been so inundated by single mothers that we no longer handle the baptism of such children discreetly (as was done decades ago), but have held such baptisms publicly, and often alongside the baptisms of properly married parents. This must likely be reexamined. We have fallen prey to the normalization of fornication in our culture. And while not every priest has done so, it must be admitted that we have not properly distinguished between what ought to be discreet (because of the behavior of the parents) and what can be publicly celebrated. However, one was still able to presume the possibility that the parents had repented of fornication and were now living properly. This is often not the case with so called homosexual “couples” who often (but not always) wish to live in very public opposition to Church teaching.
[But a] new debate was prompted by the emergence of a memo—first reported by the Wisconsin State Journal—that was sent in early May to priests of the Madison Diocese by the top aide to Bishop Robert Morlino. In the memo, the vicar general of the diocese, Monsignor James 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.”
Yes, they are unnatural unions and present a host of difficulties to us. Even in the “single mother” scenarios that have recently troubled us, comes the listing of a “father” who is often absent or sometimes even unknown. I have often had to struggle with a woman who either did not want to disclose the father or did not even know who the father was. There is always the option of writing Pater ignotus (father unknown) in the baptismal register, but it is generally desirable to indicate the biological father if he can be known. But at least the mother was known. Members of so called “gay” couples do not fit on either line. Which do we list? Who is the father? Who is the mother? It’s a mess. Further, the rites call for a blessing for mother and father. What do we do? What do we say? Its a mess, a big mess.
Bartylla says that pastors must now coordinate any decision on baptizing the children of gay couples with his office and that “each case must be evaluated individually.” And this makes sense. When you’ve got a mess, and this is a real mess, it makes sense to adopt a uniform policy. If there are 100+ parishes in a diocese, there should not be 100+ policies in a matter as serious as this. The Bishop, who is chief legislator and liturgist, ought to set the norms.
A spokesman for the Madison Diocese, Brent King, said … “We want everyone to receive this most important sacrament, and we are dealing with this sensitive matter prudently, for the child’s sake and the integrity of this most sacred sacrament,” wrote King. Yes, we want to baptize every child we can. This mess is not their fault. But we have to do so in ways that protect the common good by avoid scandal and confusion.
Officials at the USCCB said these decisions are left to local church leaders, and indicated there are no plans to formulate a national directive beyond the guidance offered in a 2006 statement on ministering to gay people. That document says that baptizing the children of gay parents is “a serious pastoral concern” but that the church should not refuse them access to the sacrament. OK, good, but I suspect that some national norms are going to be needed as well.
Since the bishops passed that document, however, an ongoing wave of victories for same-sex marriage advocates has continued to push the issue into the public arena. As more gay Catholics can marry, and can be open about their relationship, more gay couples may be presenting their children for baptism.
Exactly. What was once an abstract, even theoretical problem is now becoming more widespread. Further, the homosexual extremists are looking to embarrass us, to set us up. We need to consider carefully a way forward that respects our traditions, but does not give any credence to their unnatural unions.
“The question with gay couples is whether their opposition to the church’s teaching on marriage means that they do not in fact intend to raise the child in the faith,” said Rita Ferrone, the author of several books about liturgy and a consultant to U.S. dioceses on liturgical matters. “Gay parents may or may not be ideologically opposed to church teaching, but chances are they do not merely disobey but also reject the various norms they have transgressed,” Ferrone said.
Sadly, these days the presumption is that many people, even beyond the “gay” community itself, not only approve of but even brazenly celebrate what God calls sin and abomination. Thus our presumption of good will is difficult to maintain. Our operative presumption must become that we are being set up and pressured to approve what God does not approve.
DeBernardo said the problem with a policy that focuses specifically on gay parents is that it “stigmatizes lesbian and gay couples as being more suspect than any other parents.” Sadly, though, many if not most gay parents want to live their sin publicly. It is not fair to ask us to be silent; we cannot do so.
“It is very likely that no parents that present a child for baptism are perfectly following all church rules,” he said. “Why single out only lesbian and gay parents for further scrutiny?” OK, but again the operative point is the public nature of the sin and the scandal given by its public nature. Some sins are just more obvious and public than others.
Countering any trend to curb baptisms, however, is the long-standing presumption, in church teaching and among even conservative church leaders, that no child should be denied baptism.
And herein lies the delicate balance: the good of the child vs. the common good to avoid scandal. The key going forward is discretion. More baptisms than in the past are going to need to be celebrated privately, in the presence only of the immediate family (i.e., parents or guardians and godparents). This will need to include fornicators and other irregular parents. We have become too lax and must now apply a norm consistently that has been poorly applied in the past.
And thus the bottom line seems clear: baptize these children, but do so discreetly. Further, we ought to regain more discretion as to how we baptize children in other irregular situations. The common good and the individual good of the children can and should be balanced, but they are not mutually exclusive.
The bottom line on this does seem clear (as Msgr writes), but it seems clear in the opposite direction of Msgr's conclusion.
My rationale for the above statement will be posted below.
This is a Catholic Caucus thread
If you are not a practicing Catholic in communion with the Holy See, please refrain from posting on this thread (per Religion Moderator guidelines)
My disagreement has nothing to do with the child who finds him/herself in a most unfortunate and regrettable situation. Believe it or not, it also has nothing to do with sanctioning the custodial adults either (not that I think the couple should NOT be sanctioned, but it is irrelevant in this case).
The reasoning for this disagreement are as follows:
First, based upon Canon Law:
Can. 868 §1. For an infant to be baptized licitly:
1/ the parents or at least one of them or the person who legitimately takes their place must consent;2/ there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion; if such hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be delayed according to the prescripts of particular law after the parents have been advised about the reason.
Note the verbiage in Art 2: there must be a founded hope that the infant will be…
Not an empty hope, not a wild fantasy, but a founded hope: a hope that is based somehow in reality.
In the case of a single parent, one could reasonably have a founded hope that the parent recognized the error in his/her ways, has gone to confession, been absolved, and is now living chastely according to the teachings of the Church.
In the case of parents who are living in an invalid marriage (for example, were married by a JP), it is entirely believable that they are working through an annulment situation and will have their marriage convalidated at some point in the future.
Even in the case of an unmarried couple living together, it is theoretically possible that they will, at some point, get married in the Church.
However, in the case of the homosexual "couple," it is utterly impossible that their relationship, as long as it exists, can be made to be in accordance with the teachings of Christ. An ontological impossibility.
Since the "parents" (in quotes because of the circumstances) are the first teachers of the Faith, there is no possible way that the child will be raised as a heretic in this case. Pretty bold statement, but consider it.
Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith…
Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on…
Last time I checked, sodomy was condemned throughout Holy Scripture. Per Can. 750§1, one must believe that with divine and Catholic faith. If a child is reared to see no possible problems with "daddy and daddy" or "mommy and mommy", then that believe is in direct contradiction to the Word of God, written. And, that is textbook heresy.
Also, see Edward Peters' discussion of the above.
Second, there is pastoral practice (as I understand it, at least):
In the Instruction on Infant Baptism, the CDF tells us:
If the assurances given—for example, the choice of godparents who will take sincere care of the child, or the support of the community of the faithful—are sufficient, the priest cannot refuse to celebrate the sacrament without delay, as in the case of children of Christian families. If on the other hand they are insufficient, it will be prudent to delay Baptism. However the pastors should keep in contact with the parents so as to secure, if possible, the conditions required on their part for the celebration of the sacrament. If even this solution fails, it can be suggested, as a last recourse, that the child be enrolled in a catechumenate to be given when the child reaches school age.
It is fairly clear, from the above, that baptism should be delayed in this case.
Cardinal Marc Ouelett, back when he was Archbishop of Quebec City, had the following to say (in regards the implications if Canada was to legalize "same sex marriage":
Ouelett’s statement to the committee partially reflect the fact that there is little well-founded hope that a baby brought into a homosexual home, which homosexual ‘parents’ have no intention of altering their lifestyle, will be brought up in the Catholic religion, since homosexuality is so fundamentally contrary to Catholic teaching. The couple is demonstrating a public, persistent contempt for fundamental Catholic teaching by their relationship.
Bottom line: while I agree with Msgr Pope in that baptism, if done, needs to be done very discreetly in the case of irregular situations, I cannot bring myself to agree with him that it should be done with the child of an individual in a current, active homosexual relationship.
Msgr Pope ping
these situations are examples of malformed faamilies
First of all, I think that ALL baptisms should go back to being private. Once upon a time they were private more or less by default, because an unbaptized person was not to be brought into the church; hence the practice of having baptisteries in the narthex or in a special room to the side, but not in the main part of the building. When Vatican II changed it (or at least, changed it in the mind of most) from a sacrament performing a sacramental function into a mere welcoming ceremony, focused on “the community” rather than the salvific action of God, this was forgotten and baptism became an entirely different thing in practice.
Once upon a time, while bastards (the children of unmarried parents) were baptized, they suffered other problems: ordination was generally forbidden to them, although for no fault of their own. This was eventually changed, because visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children by withholding a sacrament for something they had not done themselves and over which they had no control was clearly an error.
One of the things noted in our 16th and 17th century baptismal records here in St Augustine is that the child of an unmarried mother was known as “hijo de la Iglesia,” a child of the Church. This was partly because sometimes these children were in fact abandoned and left to be raised by the Church (usually given to a foster family, but sometimes raised in a monastery or convent), but also because it meant that children whose father could not be identified were in a special way concerns of the Church, and conferring baptism gave the child the sacramental graces that would help him deal with a more difficult life.
My feeling is that if we regard baptism and all of the sacraments as objective realities that do real things, even working in a child who is too young to know about it, this problem will be easier to handle. Who knows how baptism - and later knowing that he has been baptized - will help that child survive a very difficult family situation?
But of course, along with this is the fact that good godparents must be chosen and that the Church has the obligation to help the parents reform their lives, whether it means that the single women should stop sleeping around or that the gays need to acknowledge their sin and leave it. I think perhaps a lot of priests simply don’t want to deal with this because it challenges them to actually teach and provide pastoral care, not always welcome by its recipients.
Ping!
Excellent comments.
AFAIK, this is still the case in the Eastern Catholic Churches.
My feeling is that if we regard baptism and all of the sacraments as objective realities that do real things, even working in a child who is too young to know about it, this problem will be easier to handle. Who knows how baptism - and later knowing that he has been baptized - will help that child survive a very difficult family situation?
My own baptism bears this out.
Yes, I think many people can share that experience. I knew someone who was baptized by a nurse just after birth, because she wasn’t expected to survive and the nurse knew that the parents (who were already separated) would not have her baptized. The mother was not Catholic and was very hostile to Christianity in general.
The girl survived, but had a very difficult childhood because of her family situation. Strangely enough, she had always been attracted to the Church, and one time when her mother was angry with her, she indignantly told the girl that she had found out that the nurse had baptized the girl while in the hospital. That turned out to be a great comfort to the girl! A few years later she was conditionally baptized into the Church and her life was very different from that of her bitter, lonely mother.
**“The question with gay couples is whether their opposition to the church’s teaching on marriage means that they do not in fact intend to raise the child in the faith,” said Rita Ferrone, the author of several books about liturgy and a consultant to U.S. dioceses on liturgical matters. **
A valid concern.
” And this is for the good of the child, who is not guilty of the sins of parents, guardians, or caretakers. It is not to be seen as an affirmation of the sins of the adults involved, whether this be due to homosexual acts, fornication, or adultery.”
Sadly, in our society, it will be taken as an affirmation. That is primarily the reason they want it done.
I agree with you there. But their sins will come back to rest on them — not the child.
**That is primarily the reason they want it done.**
If this is the reason they want the child baptized, then it is an absurdity that the child even be presented for baptism since they will not raise the child as a Catholic.
But then like the story that livius related, perhaps the child will abandon the homosexual parents and become a Catholic in full communion with the church later in life.
The conundrum for all of us, is that we know the child needs to be baptized.
My former step-daughter argued and succeeded in having the local priest baptize her out-of-wedlock baby. Ironically the baby’s father wanted to marry but the girl was not finished “living wild” and proceeded to have more affairs and children by other men before returning to cohabitation with her first child’s father.One can only hope baptism conferred grace upon the baby(now no doubt a young woman).I can hardly imagine how confusing it must have been to grow up with several sibling all with different fathers.
Have you written to Monsignor with the thoughts you outline here?
And perhaps he won't.
Should the Church provide "married" homosexuals with the opportunity to use children as weapons with which to publicly undermine the sacredness of baptismal vows, i.e. to publicly undermine the teachings of the Church?
Sixty years ago, we were all baptized in the narthex in the presence of family and close friends only. Private baptism is the default in our parish, except for adult converts who are baptised at the Easter Vigil.
The only reason I can see for unrepentant and committed homosexual activists to insist on a church baptism is for the publicity. Take away the publicity, and you'll be able to pick out the sincere desire to have a child baptised.
Of course you are correct, but Canon Law is no longer followed in the Church, not very often, anyway. Homosexual couples/groups will be herded in with everyone else, the priest or deacon will publicly baptize their child, everyone will smile, ooh, and ahh, and that will be that. The exceptions will be few and far between. Parishioners who raise eyebrows will be castigated. Cardinals will exclaim, “Bravo!” Popes will lament, “Who am I to judge?”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.