Now you can have your children baptised when you marry, says Church of England

The Daily Mail (U.K.) ^ | July 23, 2009 | Steve Doughty

[Stoat]

The Church of England yesterday overthrew 2,000 years of history by giving its blessing to couples having children before they marry.

It declared that although sex is best kept for marriage, couples who live together and have children without a wedding will no longer be regarded as living in sin.

Instead they will be encouraged to adopt traditional values at newly created services in which they will be able both to marry and baptise their children.

The new services mean that the CofE is openly accepting sex before marriage among its congregations - something rejected across two millennia of Christian history and in the founding doctrines of the Church itself.

A spokesman for the Church said that although it would continue to preach to couples that sex is best confined to marriage, in future it would take a line of 'not standing in judgment on their past, but welcoming them and pointing to a fresh future'.

The new combined wedding and baptism ceremonies - instantly dubbed 'hatch 'n' match services' by Church insiders - will contain no special element of saying sorry for sins on the part of the unmarried couple.
 

 

The Church describe the new ceremonies as 'family-friendly weddings for couples with children' and added: 'Engaged couples are welcome to church for the wedding of their dreams, whether or not they have children.'

(edit)
 

 

 

 

 

[Stoat]

Newlyweds: When Prince Charles married Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, he had to repent for his past 'sexual sins'

The Right Reverend Stephen Platten, Bishop of Wakefield and head of the CofE committee in charge of liturgy, said that the element of repentance by parents that has always been part of baptism was enough for the new services.

The CofE's current Common Worship liturgy asks parents of children who are being christened: 'Do you repent of the sins that separate us from God and neighbour?' Parents reply: 'I repent of them.'


 

[Stoat]

“Hatch n’ Match” ping

[GeronL]

How people even consider the CoE a real church anymore?

[Redbob]

the Archbishop of Canterbury is an ass.

[pissant]

The Church of England might as well fold up shop and hand their property over to the muzzie hordes.

[Ronin]

I was just wondering that myself.

[GeronL]

Isn’t it more of a social club these days?

[kromike]

Cool! Next up, the CoE will be setting up Make-it-up-as-you-go-along Fast-Wedding Franchises.

AND, when you get your card punched on the 10th visit, the next wedding is 100% guilt-free!

Idiots...

[MamaDearest]

“Hatch n’ Match” ping

It's the Hollywood way! IMHO it's repulsive behavior that sets a precedent for the children born of these unions. Monogamy is not a word in their vocabulary let alone a lifestyle.

[Daniel II]

1 Corinthians 7:36
If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married.

Sorry, but what is “acting improperly?” Does that mean holding hands? Kissing? Feeling her breasts? Massaging her vulva? Inserting a finger? A BJ? Having sex?

I realize Christ condemned “fornication,” Matthew 15:19, Mark 7:21, but where is the line drawn?

If a relationship is moving towards marriage, does one condemn any act of impulse that has a “hint of impurity.”

Just asking. Go ahead and state your opinion. I'm flame retardant.

Keep in mind that the word “virgin,” is euphemistic. Clearly, women who converted during the Roman Empire were probably ‘less than pure.’

[Daniel II]

I mean, seriously, what part of “forgiveness” do you folks not understand?

If I became a Christian and wondered away from the truth and had children out of wedlock, and I then got married in the church and had my children baptized, what would be wrong with that, that is, if I repented?

Seriously, are you that unforgiving? Come on, answer me!

[agere_contra]

The Church of England yesterday overthrew 2,000 years of history

The Church of England couldn't overthrow a coffee cup. Ridiculous Potemkin 'church'.

[agere_contra]

You answered your own question. The recipients of this new omni-sacrament will not be required to repent.

[markomalley]

ping

[BallyBill]

Don't know of many churches being too choosy lately. Some invite you to bring your pets. Why not this?

[flaglady47]

Actually, I’m curious. How do other Church denominations deal with couples who earlier had children out of wedlock and who want to marry. I would think any Church would WANT them to be married rather than continue to live in sin. I could see asking them to repent for their prior bad behavior, but I would want to see them married, in particular for the sake of the children. How do other Churches handle this, anyone know?

[NYer]

It declared that although sex is best kept for marriage, couples who live together and have children without a wedding will no longer be regarded as living in sin.

Woe to those who call evil good. The sin of fornication is now unweded bliss; and sodomy has become an acceptable chosen lifestyle. When man has lost belief in sin [and he has], he therefore no longer believes in ‘The Last Four Things:’ death, judgment, heaven, and hell.

[AnAmericanMother]

This seems odd -- I don't think the reporter really understands the issue.

As I recall it, there were some parishes in England back in the 17th and 18th centuries where the rector would refuse to baptize a "base born" child, but they were in the minority even then. No law of the Church of England required refusal, although it had been discussed at length by the Puritans (who did refuse when they were in power, but I don't think it was ever made law).

All you have to do is look at a parish register and see the number of children baptized and registered as "base born" or "bastard". Any genealogists out there can probably back me up on this.

I think what's going on here is just the silliness of officially having the belated marriage and the baptism performed in the same service, without any specific acknowledgement of the sin of fornication.

But of course there's been General Confession in the Anglican Church for years and years, so not having to make a specific confession of sin is not news.

Much ado about nothing here, in my opinion.

[AnAmericanMother]

And come to think of it, a priest is not required for a baptism. All you need is a Christian, water, and a baby.

I think the issue is registration on the rolls of the parish, not baptism per se. Now THAT might make sense, but of course nobody uses the parish rolls for taxes or anything else any more. And they won't be much use for future genealogists, because hardly anybody gets baptised in CofE any more.

[Huber]

I’ve seen worse. The insinuation that the CoE is endorsing premarital sex is one interpretation. I’d rather take them at their word that it is about doing the right thing moving forward and hold them to it. (Not that I have much faith in them - I’m more in the “Trust but verify” camp!)