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.
I understand what you are saying and have been to several RCC baptisms, but I do believe that the church will find a way to go ahead with it, because of the innocence of the child. Using godparents, for instance, to answer the questions.
The parents have to affirm that they will raise the child in the Faith.
Same sex "couples" do not have children. The rest is irrelevant.
We'll see. To not baptize the child would mean that the church is withholding priceless grace and preventing faith in the child.
I came into the Catholic Church at Easter, so forgive me if I misunderstand, but you seem to be saying that anyone who sins and fully expects to sin again (say, for example, tell a lie) cannot baptize their children in the Catholic faith. Who is able to get between the gay person and his priest or the gay person and God and know the state of his or her soul? I don't recall sinless parents being a condition of infant baptism from RCIA, but I'll go back and read my Schreck book again.
Neither do sterile couples, and yet they adopt and baptize.
It seems clear to me, "Yes we will baptize the child. No, you cannot both pretend to be it's parents in order to advance your perversion and sin".
Same sex people cannot be parents of the same child. Not possible.
No such thing as two mommies or two daddies. It's a homosexual and liberal invention.
And if any state allows two people like that to adopt a child as equal parents, they are imbeciles. (and liberals)
Dear Bryher1,
There's a difference between intending to do something, and recognizing that one may very well wind up doing it, anyway.
Believe me when I tell you, I do not INTEND at the beginning of Thanksgiving dinner to eat more food than I ought. Nonetheless, most years, I do, and I recognize that it is likely that this coming Thanksgiving, I may very well do it again.
However, I don't intend it. Proof of this is that there have been years when my intellect has actually won the battle with my stomach, and I've actually eaten a relatively modest amount of food at Thanksgiving.
However, there is clear intent on the part of the two homosexuals to sin again. It isn't that it is their expectation that they may very well fall back into sin, but rather, they don't even recognize anymore that their sin is a sin.
Furthermore, their sin is not a private one. It is not that they practice evil quietly, at least with the tribute of hypocrisy that vice pays to virtue. No, they insist, through baptizing their child, not only is their sin not a sin, and not only that they personally reject the sinfulness of their sin, but also, that the entire Church must approve of their sin, as well. Because, in that they say they will reject evil, even as they present themselves as a "married couple," the rest of us who confirm their actions (and the community does confirm the actions of those baptizing, through witnesses), they create the inference that we accept their sin.
Thus, they give scandal on top of all else.
The bottom line is that these people don't even agree with the basic moral teaching of the Church. How can they, in good faith, participate in the baptism of a child where they must commit to the moral teaching of the Church?
sitetest
I agree with you, and yet their are two gay couples in the neighborhood where I live who have natural children from previous heterosexual relationships. And, of course, plenty of lesbians get pregnant and have natural children. I just don't see any barrier to the baptism of those children, except for the paperwork aspect of only one person being able to sign the certificate.
Very well said. The only burr under my saddle is that plenty of heterosexual people don't agree with the basic moral teaching of the Church (i.e. John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, etc.) and some here seem to be raising homosexuality to a higher level sin than murder.
these kinds of cases raise alot of interesting and difficult issues. On one hand, it seems reasonable to not baptize a child whose "parents" are a homosexual couple. If a child is baptized, he or she needs to be raised in the faith. It is impossible for two sexually active homosexuals to do this. Furthermore, there is the complication of the consent of the parents - a gay couple cannot be parents. One wonders why a gay couple would even want their child baptized Catholic in the first place. Why would you want a sacrament from a church that tells you that you are living in sin?
On the other hand, baptism is a source of enormous grace. If we Catholics are serious about the necessity of baptism, then the idea of denying baptism to a child is very troubling. Who knows what plans God might have for that child? Who's to say that the baptismal grace the child of a gay couple receives will not someday lead that child to embrace Christ and reject the lifestyle of his/her parents? I am reminded of Graham Greene's novel "The End of the Affair." The novel concerns an affair between a man and a married woman named Sarah during WW2. Sarah is intially not religious at all, and has never been so. But one day, her lover is almost killed in a bombing raid on London. Sarah turns to God at this moment and promises that if God allows her lover to live, she will end the affair. The lover lives and Sarah immediately stops seeing him. Unbenknownst to her former lover and husband, Sarah is drawn to Catholicism and discusses thoughts of conversion with a priest. Sadly, she becomes ill and dies before she can join the Church. After her death, Sarah's mother reveals that she had had Sarah baptized by a Catholic priest as an infant. Sarah was not raised a Catholic beyond that, yet in the end the grace she received in baptism came through (or at least this is what the novel implies). Yes it is fiction, but it's not implausible. With the grace of God, children raised in sinful homes can change and become saints.
Correct, and only one of them is the parent.
And, of course, plenty of lesbians get pregnant and have natural children.
Right, and they are the mother. The other person is just their homosexual lover. That person can also be a care giver for the child, just like a baby sitter.
I just don't see any barrier to the baptism of those children, except for the paperwork aspect of only one person being able to sign the certificate.
Neither it seems, does the church.
It is only the homosexuals who are trying to use the issue to legitimize their sin.
Well I don’t care about history.
Rock, rock, rock’n’roll high school
’cause that’s not where I wanna be.
Rock, rock, rock’n’roll high school
I just wanna have some kicks.
I just wanna get some chicks.
Rock, rock, rock, rock, rock’n’roll high school
They would be wrong since it is just like any other sin,,unacceptable to God.
Dear Bryher1,
Thank you.
"The only burr under my saddle is that plenty of heterosexual people don't agree with the basic moral teaching of the Church (i.e. John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, etc.) and some here seem to be raising homosexuality to a higher level sin than murder."
I'm in complete sympathy with regard the failure of the Church to exercise appropriate discipline with Catholic politicians who support legal regimes that promote death. If it were up to me, at the very least, these folks would be unable to receive the sacraments without public repentence.
However, even these politicians can claim they only remotely participate in evils such as abortion, while two active homosexuals trying to baptize a child directly and proximately participate in evil.
sitetest
Well, of course John Kerry and Ted Kennedy are both divorced and remarried and Ted has quite a checkered past, but I'm not privy to whether their public support of abortion is matched by their private practice of the same.
If divorced Catholics who are remarried without an annulment, and Catholics who live together in sin without being married, and Catholics who have had abortions, and Catholics who are involved in ongoing criminal ventures etc. are no longer allowed to have their children baptized, then I guess the same should hold for homosexuals' children.
Assuming the abortion is unrepented and unconfessed, I would agree with you down to the letter. All of those persons are living outside full communion with the church and cannot in good faith promise to bring up a child within it. "You can't give what you don't have."
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.