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.
You are absolutely right! My children are ethnically half-Jewish, although their father is not religous, and I have always told them that they could go either way-- same God, different holidays, their choice. ;)
No sin is acceptable to God.
One of the key points of this article that I think bears repeating and emphasis is the following quote: "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."
I think he just gave us an important peek at his cards. Emphasis on: "the church should not be free to refuse baptism under any circumstance."
I would not be at all surprised if step two is the introduction of "civil rights" legislation designed to force churches to perform baptisms on demand. Perhaps not with criminal penalties per se, but as a requirement to retain such things as tax-free status.
One thing that surprises me about history is how forthright evildoers are about their plans.
Ping to 69 and 74.
Another example of what I'm talking about (see my PM).
Is there something pent up inside of you that you want to tell us about?
Your pint is well-taken. In fact, it's hard for me to imagine any rejoinder which would case an attractive light on this shameful case..
It seems to me that Pius IX was clearly in the wrong: the abduction of this child, Edgardo Mortara, was gravely morally offensive. Even worse is that Pius never apparently repented this kidnapping: he justified it in public and in private all his life. That's very disturbing.
And even more disturbing is that he (Pius IX) is being considered for canonization. The Church is under no obligation to canonize popes. Usually people are canonized because the Church considers their life of virtue worthy of honor and emulation; but nobody would want anybody to emulate this.
Such things were made possible by being written into the civil law of the Vatican States, and thus the Pope as head of State was certainly responsible for it. But it was never Canon Law nor a dogma of the Church per se, nor a matter of Papal infallibility.
The best I can say --- I know it sounds lame --- is that this is the only such incident I know of in the last 150 years. And after the terrible days of WWII, churchmen such as Angelo Roncalli (later Pope John XXII) and Karol Wojtyla (later John Paul II) showed heroic zeal in returning rescued Jewish children to their parents or their surviving Jewish relatives --- and this demonstrates that they did not consider the infamous legislation of the Papal States circa 1858 to be normative Catholic teaching.
And when that happens, the result may well be a situation similar to that of China - the 'state approved' Catholic Church and the underground Catholic Church, persecuted and martyred for the faith.
Infant Baptism requires the solemn promise by the parents and sponsors to raise the child in the Catholic and Christian faith. Two homosexuals living in an active homosexual relationship would, it seems to me, have trouble honestly making such a promise. I do not understand why Cardinal Ouellet did not emphasize that aspect, but that may be a subtext behind the "signature" issue. Even on the face of it, however, the Church cannot accede to an act that gives credibility to homosexual marriage because the Church insists that no such thing as homosexual marriage is possible. Baptism of a person not able to request it on his own (infant baptism) is not automatic upon request but can only be granted under certain conditions. Baptism comes from the Church as authorized by Christ, so it is perfectly appropriate for the Church to refuse baptism under certain circumstances. An adult who is living in open and obvious sin would be refused baptism unless and until he repents of his sin; in infant baptism the "parents" and sponsors come under the same requirements because they are standing in for the infant who cannot himself choose baptism.
You have recounted a mythical retelling of a complicated story. The same rules were in place in 1858. Your charges against Piux IX have been amply refuted. The Jewish parents hired a Catholic nanny against the law; the child was not "stolen" but in fact made his own choice. You've bought into an urban legend--one of dozens that circulate widely and are credulously believed by those who already are prejudiced against the Church. Don't take my word for it--read both sides and then make up your own mind. But you won't find both sides in the MSM--you'll have to do a bit of work. You wouldn't accept the MSM line on Hillary Clinton or John McCain, would you? Why are you so easily bamboozled when it comes to things Catholic (and many CINOs are easily bamboozled on these matters).
A distinction without a difference
Straining at knats and swallowing camels
A distinction without a difference
Straining at GNATS and swallowing camels
Beautifully said!
"And when that happens, the result may well be a situation similar to that of China - the 'state approved' Catholic Church and the underground Catholic Church, persecuted and martyred for the faith."
I doubt that the persecution would be as dramatic as in China, but the end state of an offical church and separate underground church is possible.
I guess the Catholic Church has come a long way.
Where did you get this lunacy from? How about referencing a source?
Mr. Prud'homme what do you consider homosexuality -a gift of Government -an abomination sanctioned by fools like you?
"Who tells me that two mothers or two fathers cannot raise the child in the Catholic faith?"
How about the Church you are supposedly a member of? Homosexuals can not raise children let alone raise them to be Catholic -if the children are correctly catechized it will be in spite of the depraved homosexuals that they may have to endure exposure to and abuse from...
For those interested -some links to documents and some excerpts:
Catholic documents and teaching on subject of homosexuality:
- The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality - Guidelines for Education within the Family
104. A particular problem that can appear during the process of sexual maturation is homosexuality, which is also spreading more and more in urbanized societies. This phenomenon must be presented with balanced judgement, in the light of the documents of the Church. Young people need to be helped to distinguish between the concepts of what is normal and abnormal, between subjective guilt and objective disorder, avoiding what would arouse hostility. On the other hand, the structural and complementary orientation of sexuality must be well clarified in relation to marriage, procreation and Christian chastity. "Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained". A distinction must be made between a tendency that can be innate and acts of homosexuality that "are intrinsically disordered" and contrary to Natural Law.Especially when the practice of homosexual acts has not become a habit, many cases can benefit from appropriate therapy. In any case, persons in this situation must be accepted with respect, dignity and delicacy, and all forms of unjust discrimination must be avoided. If parents notice the appearance of this tendency or of related behaviour in their children, during childhood or adolescence, they should seek help from expert qualified persons in order to obtain all possible assistance.
For most homosexual persons, this condition constitutes a trial. "They must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfil God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition". "Homosexual persons are called to chastity".
- Persona Humana - Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics
VIII At the present time there are those who, basing themselves on observations in the psychological order, have begun to judge indulgently, and even to excuse completely, homosexual relations between certain people. This they do in opposition to the constant teaching of the Magisterium and to the moral sense of the Christian people.A distinction is drawn, and it seems with some reason, between homosexuals whose tendency comes from a false education, from a lack of normal sexual development, from habit, from bad example, or from other similar causes, and is transitory or at least not incurable; and homosexuals who are definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct or a pathological constitution judged to be incurable.
In regard to this second category of subjects, some people conclude that their tendency is so natural that it justifies in their case homosexual relations within a sincere communion of life and love analogous to marriage, in so far as such homosexuals feel incapable of enduring a solitary life.
In the pastoral field, these homosexuals must certainly be treated with understanding and sustained in the hope of overcoming their personal difficulties and their inability to fit into society. Their culpability will be judged with prudence. But no pastoral method can be employed which would give moral justification to these acts on the grounds that they would be consonant with the condition of such people. For according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality. In Sacred Scripture they are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the sad consequence of rejecting God. This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved of.
- Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons
10. It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church's pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase.
11. It has been argued that the homosexual orientation in certain cases is not the result of deliberate choice; and so the homosexual person would then have no choice but to behave in a homosexual fashion. Lacking freedom, such a person, even if engaged in homosexual activity, would not be culpable.
Here, the Church's wise moral tradition is necessary since it warns against generalizations in judging individual cases. In fact, circumstances may exist, or may have existed in the past, which would reduce or remove the culpability of the individual in a given instance; or other circumstances may increase it. What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable. What is essential is that the fundamental liberty which characterizes the human person and gives him his dignity be recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as well. As in every conversion from evil, the abandonment of homosexual activity will require a profound collaboration of the individual with God's liberating grace.
- Some Considerations Concerning the Response to Legislative Proposals on Non-discrimination of Homosexual Persons
II. Applications10. "Sexual orientation" does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder (cf. "Letter," No. 3) and evokes moral concern.
11. There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment.
13. Including "homosexual orientation" among the considerations on the basis of which it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead to regarding homosexuality as a positive source of human rights, for example, in respect to so-called affirmative action or preferential treatment in hiring practices. This is all the more deleterious since there is no right to homosexuality (cf. No. 10) which therefore should not form the basis for judicial claims. The passage from the recognition of homosexuality as a factor on which basis it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead, if not automatically, to the legislative protection and promotion of homosexuality. A person's homosexuality would be invoked in opposition to alleged discrimination, and thus the exercise of rights would be defended precisely via the affirmation of the homosexual condition instead of in terms of a violation of basic human rights.
- Third World Meeting of Families: Conclusions of the Pastoral Theological Congress
Mention should also be made of recent attempts to legalize adoptions by homosexual persons, and this must be strongly rejected. It is obvious that this is not the situation for authentic up-bringing and personalizing growth. “The bond between two men or two women cannot constitute a real family, nor much less can the right be attributed to a union of this kind to adopt children without a family”. With regard to foster care and adoption, the great principle to be applied is always the child’s higher interests which much prevail over other considerations.
- Fourth World Meeting of Families: Conclusions of the Pastoral Theological Congress
We reaffirm the rights and dignity of all children. They should never be neglected and abandoned on the streets. They should be protected, especially when threatened by exploitation through prostitution, pornography, child-labor, drug trafficking, homosexual adoption and immoral "sex education". A new threat to children is posed by the misuse of the Internet, when this intrudes into family life and undermines the rights and duties of parents.Children are the "crown of marriage", the real wealth of humanity. The natural place for their education is the family. It is here, in the community of life and love, that they are formed as members of Christ's Church. It is here that, honoring and loving their parents, they can enrich the lives of all members of the wider family.
- Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons
4. There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts “close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved”.7. Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition. Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race. The possibility of using recently discovered methods of artificial reproduction, beyond involving a grave lack of respect for human dignity, does nothing to alter this inadequacy.
Homosexual unions are also totally lacking in the conjugal dimension, which represents the human and ordered form of sexuality. Sexual relations are human when and insofar as they express and promote the mutual assistance of the sexes in marriage and are open to the transmission of new life.
As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.
- Religiosorum Institutio
30. Those To Be Excluded; Practical DirectivesAdvantage to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers.
That's neat. The rabbi of some of my Californian cousins was raised both Jewish and Irish Catholic. He had both a bar mitzvah and a communion (confirmation? I might be mistaken as to which is which) and after he did a tour with the Marines, he had a choice between yeshiva and seminary school. Chose yeshiva after a long hard decision, but I've always found the idea of Rev O'Connor very amusing. He's by all accounts an amazing man too, all the better and his faith in G-d all the stronger because he was raised with both backgrounds.
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.