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.
True marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Legal recognition of any other union as "marriage" undermines true marriage, and legal recognition of homosexual unions actually does homosexual persons a disfavor by encouraging them to persist in what is an objectively immoral arrangement.
"When legislation in favor of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic lawmaker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favor of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral" (UHP 10).
UHP Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons
Mr. Prud'homme. God created man and woman and told them to be fruitful and multiply. Homosexuals cannot accomplish this task. It's really that simple.
The logical progression in the liberal agenda after gay marriage is to use that privilege, once granted, against the Christian churches by trying to force concessions from the churches for gay couples.
Baptism is not a "rule". Its a covenant and commitment between parents, sponsors, congregations and God.
Any one of those parties mentioned can refuse the baptism.
This signature issue is utter sillyness...it cheapens the sacrament. The baptism should not be refused, the child should be brought in to the church without its "parents" and get baptized. The act of baptism is not represented in the piece of paper you get.
Yes, it is inevitable.
Already in Vermont, there was recently a story about a small business owner who runs some sort of inn popular for hosting weddings, being bullied by a couple seeking a 'civil union.'
In the end, it will prove impossible to separate public from private, so the best thing to do is offer legal recognition only to traditional marriages, you know, like it has always been.
"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?"
Being a Jew and not a Catholic, I couldn't be positive, but I do believe it...oh, yes...WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE. It's not ok in the Tanakh (old Testament), and it's not ok in the New Testament, which makes it positively not ok in Catholicism at all. Or in any Judeo-Christian denomination worthy of the description.
Homosexual Agenda "This is Just the Beginning" Ping.
Just the beginning. More to follow - no doubt things we can't even imagine in a nightmare are now percolating as we speak. Abominations R Us.
I have an alternative rallying cry: "Stop legislating immorality!"
Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.
Nowhere does the Cardinal say he is not going to baptize children. He only says women can't sign the slot on the paper for "father" and men can't sign the slot on the paper for "mother."
I think so. I was a big fan of JP II myself, and I think he did a wonderful job. And actually, I think the Catholic Church is one of the best things in the world (for the most part; like anything made or touched by man, IMHO, it still has flaws). The reason why, IMO, the Catholic Church is singled out for so much PC revision is because its so powerful, and so effective as a force for order and morality in the world.
I like how Christians of all sorts and Jews get along these days. And I think its important that we all continue to, because with the hideous assault on religious precepts that the godless left is launching (hey, if we're the religious right, than they are definitely the godless left) we all need to stand together and fight them back, side by side. We have important differences, but we all believe in morality, decency, truth, justice and G-d. And that, in the end, is enough to bring us all together.
I'm sure that if the actual, a/k/a real, parents wanted to sign, there would be no problem.
Calling a homosexual couple the "parents" of a child is perverse and should not be allowed.
Why not go to a thread where someone gives a whit about what you think?
Not for you to decide, jerk.
Who tells me that two mothers or two fathers cannot raise the child in the Catholic faith?"
Well gee, moron, if THEY are not Catholic (which they are NOT) then why should they teacj anything relating to Catholicism? Idiot.
Not for you to decide, jerk.
Who tells me that two mothers or two fathers cannot raise the child in the Catholic faith?"
Well gee, moron, if THEY are not Catholic (which they are NOT) then why should they teach anything relating to Catholicism? Idiot.
Properly formatted this time, sheesh.
The Catechism defines what constitutes a valid baptism. Among other things, either a father's or a mother's consent is necessary, unless there is an exceptional circumstance. The consent is then a part of the sacrament and any tinkering with it, such as a male presenting himself as a "mother", or a female presenting herself as a "father", or there being two "mothers" consenting, or two "fathers", will invalidate it. It is very good that these people want the children in their custody baptised, and there is a way for them to do so validly: have a real mother or a real father take the sacramental part, and the partner be a witness to it, or maybe a godparent.
What I suspect is really happening is that the gay activists want to smuggle a recognition of their bogus "parenthood" through the back door.
Either way, it really won't matter. Baptism of children or adults doesn't save, nor does it reduce sin in any way.
Secretly baptizing Jewish children? What's your source?
"Among other things, either a father's or a mother's consent is necessary"
Is it either/or?
If one parent has to sneak around to the priest with the baby because the other parent opposes, should the priest confer the sacrament?
(Honest question; no ulterior motives.)
With regard to the Jewish Children who, during the German occupation, have been entrusted to Catholic institutions and families and whom Jewish institutions are reclaiming to be entrusted to them, the Holy Congregation of the Holy Office has taken a decision which can be summarized as follows:
1) Avoid, as much as possible, to answer in writing to Jewish authorities, but do it orally.
2) Each time that it will be necessary to respond, it must be said that the Church must make its inquiries to study each case separately;
3) The children who have been baptized could not be entrusted to institutions which would not be in a position to ensure their Christian education;
4) For the children who have lost their relatives, given that the Church looked after them, it would not be appropriate that they would be abandoned by the Church or entrusted to persons who have no rights over them, at least until they are in a position to dispose of themselves. This, obviously, for the children who would not have been baptized.
5) If the children were entrusted by relatives, and if the relatives reclaim them now, inasmuch as the children have not been baptized, they can be returned to them.
The church's stance that a baptized child is irrevocably Christian was established nearly a century before the Holocaust, when, in 1858, papal guards took Edgardo Mortara, 6, from his family in Bologna when word spread that he had been clandestinely baptized by a Catholic maid.
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.