Posted on 07/15/2005 9:22:45 AM PDT by NYer
The Catholic church will not baptize the child of a same-sex couple if both parents want to sign the certificate of baptism, the Conference of Catholic Bishops said yesterday.
The church's position emerged after independent Senator Marcel Prud'homme took issue with testimony from Marc Cardinal Ouellet on Wednesday at Senate committee hearings into the same-sex marriage bill.
Cardinal Ouellet, who explained Roman Catholic opposition to the legislation is based partly on church doctrine against homosexual acts, said the Civil Marriage Act will present a range of difficult issues other than the question of marriage solemnization if the bill becomes law, as expected next week.
"If I take the example of the ceremony of baptism, according to our canon law, we cannot accept the signatures of two fathers or two mothers as parents of an infant," Cardinal Ouellet told the committee. "With a law that makes these unions official, situations of this will multiply and this threatens to disturb not just the use of our territory, but also our archives and other aspects of the life of our communities."
His statement left the impression with several senators and observers that Catholic church rules would not allow the baptism of children of same-sex couples, even if the marriage bill passes.
Mr. Prud'homme, a Catholic, said the church should not be free to refuse baptism under any circumstance. "It's a question of rules, but I consider a baby a gift of God," he said in an interview.
"If two mothers or two fathers come to baptize a baby, how can you turn down baptism? To me it's insane. Even if they have to change the ruling of the baptism certificate. Who tells me that two mothers or two fathers cannot raise the child in the Catholic faith?"
But after Mr. Prud'homme expressed shock with the idea of Catholic refusal of baptism for children of same-sex marriages, an official with the Conference of Catholic Bishops said yesterday that would only be the case if both fathers or both mothers insisted on signing the baptismal certificate.
Benoit Bariteau, associate general secretary of the conference, suggested the parents would be to blame for the failure to obtain baptism for their child by insisting on both signatures.
"If the parents insist that the two signatures be on the act of baptism, if we say no, it will be their choice of seeking baptism or not," said Mr. Bariteau.
Asked whether that meant that if both same-sex parents insist on signing the certificate, the baptism will not take place, Mr. Bariteau repled: "No."
He explained that if one signature is sufficient for both parents, the church would not refuse to baptize children of a same-sex couple.
The example highlights the problem churches are set to face due to the same-sex marriage law, even though a host of witnesses assured the Senate committee that the freedom of religion guarantees under the Charter of Rights will prevent churches from being forced to marry gay couples.
Meanwhile, the broader question of how children are hurt by societal attitudes and laws concerning homosexuality and same-sex relationships came to the fore during the final day of testimony before a Senate committee yesterday.
Logic impaired, eh?
The baptisms were not "secret," but open, for the purposes of keeping the Nazis from murdering the children as Jews.
And most importantly, what you have posted makes no reference to refusing to return the children to their parents, but only to "institutions" and "persons who have no rights over them."
Paragraph (5) specifically and explicitly contradicts you.
This is how I read it also.
This article ends with: The example highlights the problem churches are set to face, etc.
The problem will not be that the RCC church would withhold grace from the child.
Churches that believe the Sacrament of Baptism does something to the individual baptized, such as infusing grace or faith, will not want to refuse the sacrament to anyone.
"in 1858"
Oh, yeah? Well, in 1877, a Jewish person in lower Moldavia made a disrespectful remark about the wood carvings in a church in upper Slobbovia, so I guess that tells you all you need to know about Judaism.
Schmendrick.
Yes, I believe only one parent's consent is necessary. But I found nothing about that in the Catechism. Can anyone provide a reference?
It existed long before that, actually.
papal guards took Edgardo Mortara, 6, from his family in Bologna when word spread that he had been clandestinely baptized by a Catholic maid.
Young Mr. Mortara was in danger of death at the time, but recovered.
It was actually against the law at the time for a Jewish family to employ a Catholic domestic, in part to prevent exactly this situation from happening.
Edgardo was raised personally by Pope Pius IX as though he were the Pope's own son. When offered the opportunity, at age 18, to renounce his Catholicism, he refused. He later became a priest and wrote a book effusively praising Pius IX.
(Just some additional details about the story you may not have heard.)
This was church policy, as directed by the Pope so your made up analogy isn't even apt.
So if you steal a child from his parents and treat him nice it is OK?
"This was church policy, as directed by the Pope so your made up analogy isn't even apt."
Campion has already blasted your "history" out of the water, so why don't you just give it a rest?
"so your made up analogy isn't even apt."
It's called "using absurdity to illustrate absurdity." It only works on people who have a sense of the absurd.
Catholic canon law requires that the parents have a well-founded intention to raise the child in the Catholic faith. In fact, they have to specifically indicate their intent and willingness to do so during the liturgy. (I should know, I've been there and done that 4 times.)
How could a pair of homosexuals do that? How could they, with a straight face, recite the Christian baptismal promises? ("Do you reject Satan?" "I do" "And all his works?" "I do" "And all his empty promises?" "I do")
"Yes, I believe only one parent's consent is necessary."
Thanks.
for clarity. I did say it was a sacrament.
maybe you missed that.
The Catholic teaching is that baptism remits the original sin and is, ordinarily, necessary for salvation. It is not a guarantee of salvation, although if a baptised infant dies before age of reason, we can be confident of his salvation because the baptism remitted the original sin, and the invincible ignorance of the infancy prevented him from committing a personal sin.
Through the back door? Bad choice of words there.
It isn't "history" it is history. And pointing out that they were NICE to the child they stole from his parents and that he was lifelong Catholic after his theft and indoctrination hardly "blasts" anything "out of the water".
And I have a good sense of the absurd. That would be your absurd argument.
As I've already pointed out, the error was the maid's, in baptizing the child in the first place.
Once he's baptized, he's a Christian. Christians are responsible to ensure that Christians are given the opportunity to practice their faith. At least they were back when they actually believed in the Christian faith.
Keep in mind that the Pope was the secular chief of state, at that time, in that place. If you haven't noticed, the government(s) of the US also claim the moral right to "steal children from their parents and treat them nice". If the nice people from child protective services ever pay you a visit, I suggest you don't smart off too much to them, or you'll find yourself before a judge trying to get your kids back.
Precisely right. I don't see how a priest could in good conscience baptize a child under such conditions.
I'm no fan of gay marriage, but when you say gays can't have a well founded intention to raise their child in the Catholic faith and can't reject Satan and all his works you seem to raise homosexuality to a higher level of sin than all others. Is it because they are not fighting against their sin? It seems to me it would be a pretty rare parent you does not sin, and rarer and rarer the parent who confesses and professes sorrow over those sins he/she repeats continually.
They're not only not fighting against it, they're proclaiming and celebrating it publicly.
and rarer and rarer the parent who confesses and professes sorrow over those sins he/she repeats continually.
You can't "profess sorrow" over a sin you objectively intend to repeat.
The child of a man and woman who are cohabiting and refuse to marry should not be baptized either, for exactly the same reason.
I would of course make an exception if the child is in danger of death, but anyone can baptize under those circumstances.
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.