Church to restrict baptism of gay couples' children (Catholic Church in Canada)

Ottawa Citizen ^ | July 15, 2005 | Tim Naumetz

[Mrs. Don-o]

On the subject of WWII Jewish children allegedly being baptized and then prevented from being reuinted with their parents:

It would be disturbing and gravely morally wrong, if true; but it turns out that the document is question directly contradicted the policy put forth by Pius XII just a month before, and was probably a forgery. I'm pasting in an except here, but more adequate reporage can be found at insidethevatican.com

--On December 28, 2004, Italian historian Alberto Melloni published a 1946 document, in the Milan daily "Corriere della Sera," alleging that Pius XII had blocked the re-unification of Jewish children rescued by the Church during the Holocaust, with their surviving families, after the War. Melloni claimed that Pius's papal nuncio in France at the time, Angelo Roncalli (the future Pope John XXIII) ignored the papal directive and helped place the Jewish children back with their families.

--On January 11, Italian journalist Andrea Tornielli and historian Matteo Luigi Napolitano published a devastating expose of Melloni's claims, in the more responsible Italian paper, "Il Giornale." They revealed that the October, 1946 document Melloni was presenting as a papal document, ordering French officials not to hand over Jewish children to their families, was not, in fact a papal letter, but an unsigned, mistranslated French memo, written by an unknown French official, misrepresenting an authentic directive of Pius XII, written one month earlier, clearly directing Church officials to return Jewish children to their relatives. The original documents, as well as supplementary material, have now been posted on Napolitano's website (http://www.vaticanfiles.net).

--In the new January-Febuary 2005 edition of "Inside the Vatican," just out, papal experts William Doino Jr and Professor Ronald Rychlak, following the revelations of Tornielli and Napolitano, update and recount the whole affair, demonstrating how the latest allegations, repeated by a prejudiced and uninformed media, constitute yet "another anti-papal hoax." The two authors reveal the truth about the Vatican's directives, showing how hard Pius XII worked, in unison with Roncalli, to save persecuted Jewish children during the Holocaust, and then to re-unite them with their families, after the War. In the same issue, Mary Jo Anderson, a well-known Catholic author, castigates the anti-papal polemicists for repeating allegations about Pius XII before examining all the facts.

--On January 27, the influential website newsmax.com published an explosive article entitled, "NY Times Wrong: Pius XII Saved Jews," assailing "The New York Times" for publishing a story, on January 9th ("Saving Jewish Children, But at What Cost?"], which repeated Melloni's charges, even as evidence was just then emerging which would completely discredit them. The highly-documented newsmax article proved that "The New York Times" piece did not even meet the minimum standards of responsible journalism, and called for the firing of the editors and writers involved in "The Times'" bogus story.

--In its new issue, dated February 5, 2005, the Vatican-approved Jesuit fortnightly, "La Civilta Cattolica," has published an authoritative article, entitled, "La vicenda dei bambini ebrei salvati dall'Olocausto" [The Case of the Jewish Children Saved from the Holocaust] demolishing the allegations of Melloni, and confirming the research of Tornielli, Napolitano, Doino and Rychlak.

--An American organization called the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights (http://www.catholicleague.com) has published three major news releases -- on January 14, 18 and 27 -- refuting every aspect of the anti-papal campaign, and detailing the actual record of Pius XII, including new details (first aired by the Italian weekly "Avvenire"), about Hitler's plot to kidnap Pius XII, because of the pontiff's fierce opposition to Nazi ideology, and because Pius was considered a 'friend of the Jews' by the Third Reich."

[sitetest]

Dear Bryher1,

Wow, that's quite a load. You've lumped a lot of unlike things together. Remember, though, that someone does not perform one thing properly doesn't mean that he is excused from performing anything properly. If priests and pastors regularly mishandle one kind of case, it does not create license to mishandle other types of cases.

To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Kennedy received a declaration of nullity, and I believe that Mr. Kerry has made a similar claim (although I've seen it disputed).

It gets a bit tricky beyond that, though. Like I said, you've lumped a lot of unlike things together.

Remember, two individuals who are not married but have a child together, are the actual parents of their child. Putting both their names on the baptismal certificate is a recognition of a biological fact - that these two individuals procreated this child.

It is far from an ideal situation. One hopes that they are living apart, and one hopes that they have resumed a chaste relationship. In this case, a pastor might use some discretion, and baptize the child, if the two parents are not publicly carrying on an ongoing immoral relationship. Even so, though I'd disagree with the pastor who permitted two publicly and brazenly cohabitating persons to baptize their child, nonetheless, putting both their names on the baptismal certificate is merely a recognition of the actual reality of the situation.

For two homosexuals living together in an immoral relationship, they cannot both be the biological parents of the child. Thus, to insist that both their names go on the baptismal certificate as "parents" requires that the Church recognize licitness of their relationship, a licitness which does not actually exist. It is to force the Church to recognize a lie as true.

For two homosexuals to put their names on a baptismal certificate is to ask the Church to affirm the lie of their alleged relationship, their alleged marriage. In placing both names on the baptismal certificate, it is not a recognition of the fact of actual biological parenthood, in that they cannot both be biological parents, but rather, it is the affirming of the artificial construct, in this case created by the state, of "homosexual marriage."

I can't see how a Catholic priest could justify such an action.

As for Catholics who have been directly and formally involved in procuring or performing abortions, without formal repentence in the confessional to a priest authorized to absolve them of their crime (a faculty which must specifically be granted to them by the bishop), they are in a state of excommunication, and if the pastor is aware of this, he should not permit them to present themselves as parents of a child to be baptized. Pastors who do this, in my opinion, err.

As for folks involved in ongoing illegal activities, well, I'd imagine that the pastor must have fairly certain knowledge of specific guilt to act on it.


sitetest

[annalex]

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

I don't think that is what the Church teaches. In order to baptise a child, one parent has to credibly promise to properly bring up the child. That parent does not have to promise anything about himself. If the parent is not in full communion, he still can take the child to church and sign him up for a catechism class, thus fulfilling the baptismal obligation.

The problem with homosexual couples baptising is not that they are sinners but that if they are acknowledged as two parents, that lie invalidates the baptism.

[Alexander Rubin]

Works for me. As I said, the catholic church these days I think is a force for good.

[Bryher1]

I think we're in agreement. The article seemed to go out of its way to claim that the Catholic Church would not baptize a child brought to her by homosexuals when the facts seem to be that the Catholic Church will now allow a man to call himself a mother or a woman to call herself a father on the baptism certificate.

And, of course, just because two men or two women (or a man and a woman) are living together and the government calls them married doesn't mean they are having sex.

[Sloth]

As a non-Catholic, I don't know the ins & outs of their doctrines; is an infant baptism alleged to be of significant spiritual benefit to the child? If so, how is it right to do spiritual harm to the child just because the parents are recalcitrant sinners?

[Antioch]

"Who tells me that two mothers or two fathers cannot raise the child in the Catholic faith?"

Wouldn't the parents be obliged as Catholics to transmit correct teaching about Christian morality to the children? How the parents are going to reconcile that truth when junior starts rummaging around in daddy's closet?

[Mrs. Don-o]

You asked: "...is an infant baptism alleged to be of significant spiritual benefit to the child? If so, how is it right to do spiritual harm to the child just because the parents are recalcitrant sinners?

Good question. Maybe some of the other Catholic posters have greater understanding of the Sacraments than I have (I hope!!) but I'll try to explain it as well as I can.

Baptism (like Matrimony or any other sacrament) has to be at least implicitly consented to. The priest asks the person to be baptized,

Do you reject sin so as to live in the freedom of God's children?

Do you reject Satan, father of sin and prince of darkness?

Do you believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth?

Do you believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was born of the Virgin Mary, was crucified, died, and was buried, rose from the dead, an is now seated at the right hand of the Father?

Do you believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting?

To each, the catechumen answers, "I do." If the person is to be baptized is an infant, his or her parents or sponsors answer "I do" in the infant's place, with the assumption that they baby will be raised in the Faith and that the affirmative answers, now merely implicit, will day by day become the baby's own.

The Church is so concerned about the consent becoming "realized," that godparents are supposed to pledge themselves to the child's religious formation, in addition to the parents, and in the place of the parents if they should die.

So if its quite dubious that the parents are living in the Faith, they can't pass the Faith on to their child.

Thus the Church's decision not to baptize under those circumstances.

And consider the alternative: if you said that, out of charity, one should baptize everybody, with or without at least implicit consent, you could take a firehose and baptize the crowds at a football stadium. Whee! Gotcha! You're baptized!

Caught myself smiling there, I'll admit. But no. (Wipes away smile.) That's not the way it works.

[masamune]

Its organizations like this (Catholic Church of Canada) that give conservatives a bad name

[Mylo]

Thats not the way it works....NOW. But in 1858 it was OK to baptize a child without either his or his parents consent and then steal the child from his parents because they were Jewish.

[kjvail]

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?"

This is almost as stupid as the infamous "who is the Church to say who can recieve communion" uttered during the '04 election cycle.

[suzyjaruki]

Question for you. Is there a difference in the after life between a baptized infant and a nonbaptized infant if they die in their infancy?

I knew a priest who thought it would be a benefit to baptize all infants, was he wrong?

[kjvail]

"some here seem to be raising homosexuality to a higher level sin than murder."

4 Sins that cry out to Heaven for vengence

1) willful murder

“What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to me from the ground.” (Gn 4:10)

2) the sin of Sodom

Then the Lord said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave, I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry which has come to me.”(Gn 18:20-21)

3) Defrauding a laborer of his wages

“You shall not oppress a hired servant who is poor and needy, whether he is one of your brethren or one of the sojourners who are in your land within your towns; you shall give him his hire on the day he earns it, before the sun goes down (for he is poor, and sets his heart upon it); lest he cry against you to the Lord, and it be a sin in you.”(Dt 24:14-15)

4) opression of widows and orphans

“You shall not afflict any widow or orphan. If you do afflict them, and they cry out to me, I will surely hear their cry.”(Ex 21-23)

Crying to Heaven for Vengeance

[little jeremiah]

If you want to not be Zotted, I would suggest that you frame your opinions in a different manner. For instance, instead of making a baseless inflammatory broad denunciation of the Catholic Church, state what your actual grievance (real or imagined) is.

Otherwise, my friend, your time here will be short.

It's not that opposing viewpoints are forbidden, but when they are couched in insulting rhetoric and consist solely of name calling (as in this one) people wind up getting Zotted.

If you read a lot here, you will be amazed how your viewpoint about many things may change.

[Mrs. Don-o]

You asked: "Is there a difference in the after life between a baptized infant and a non-baptized infant if they die in their infancy?...I knew a priest who thought it would be a benefit to baptize all infants, was he wrong?"

That's one of those things the Church does not have a dogmatic answer for. On the one hand, Christ taught that baptism is necessary for salvation.

On the other hand, people who weren't baptized (e.g. the "Good Thief")(and for that matter, Moses, Elijah, etc.) were clearly saved, which prompted the Church to teach about "baptism of desire" (meaning, if you desire to do all that God requires of you, but you die, God is just and accepts the implicit desire of your heart.)

And on the other other hand (I have three hands here? OK) babies can't desire anything, but Christ did say that we had to become like little children to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. He does seem to have a strong liking for children. (!!)

The Catechism says this:

"1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth."

The Catechism also says this:

"1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism."

Some have speculated that maybe God gives babies a moment of infused knowledge in which they can choose for Him or against Him. Other speculate that they are given an existence of perfect natural happiness at the "threshold" of heaven, so to speak threshold = limina in Latin, from which is derived the term "limbo") --- but we don't know.

Frankly, it's mysterious. We don't know exactly how God's mercy works.

[suzyjaruki]

Thanks for your reply, my 3-handed FRiend.

[wallcrawlr]

yeah, thanks for that. it does seem that way.

[dangus]

Some Catholics have held that babies who die without baptism do not go to Heaven, but do not go to the torturous Hell of the wicked, either, but Rather, that there is a Hell that is more similar to the Hell once known as Abraham's Bosom, where the souls remain with neither torment, nor the completion of the beatific vision. But I'd like to believe that the Church shall storm this Hell, and bring all those in it to a beatific vision. "And the Gates of Hell shall not withstand it."

[Salvation]

How can a gay couple have children?

[NYer]

How can a gay couple have children?

Trust me on this one ... it would be much too embarrasing to describe the process. Don't even let your imagination go there.