Skip to comments.Wis. Diocese Clarifies Stance on Baptizing Same-Sex Couples' Babies
Posted on 07/03/2014 6:01:01 AM PDT by marshmallow
Madison, Wis., Jul 2, 2014 / 03:50 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- The Diocese of Madison, Wis. explained its response to same-sex couples who present children for baptism, welcoming sincere baptism requests but also warning of speculative or scurrilous news reports on the subject.
In a June 27 statement, the diocese reproduced vicar general Monsignor James Bartylla's May 10 confidential e-mail to priests, which noted that each request for baptism for a child being raised by a same-sex couple must be evaluated individually.
Priests who receive such requests should contact him to consult and coordinate, Msgr. Bartylla said.
As you know, there a plethora of difficulties, challenges, and considerations associated with these unnatural unions (including scandal) linked with the baptism of a child, and such considerations touch upon theology, canon law, pastoral approach, liturgical adaptation, and sacramental recording, the monsignor added.
That confidential e-mail drew the attention of the Wisconsin State Journal and attracted other national news, with the Wisconsin paper describing it as a change in process.
Religion News Service reporter David Gibson wrote about the Madison diocese's approach June 26, depicting it as a possible new cultural battleground and claiming that there is a trend to curb baptisms. He cited critics of Madison Bishop Robert Morlino who suspected the policy would curb baptisms he considers problematic.
In response to media coverage, the Madison diocese reproduced two statements its communications director Brent King sent to the Wisconsin newspaper.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicnewsagency.com ...
And why is the sex of the child always the same as that of his homo parents?
Oh it’s not always. Sadly I know a few boys being raised by lesbians and they are the about as screwed up as any kids I have met.
Sorry but I just don’t see anything right about baptizing the children of homosexual couples, unless the children will be taken away from them permanently once baptized. The “parents” are not living in anything resembling a state of grace and should not have the children in the first place.
The Russian Orthodox Church thinks that 1) infant baptism is performed due to faith of parents, 2) if the parents are a same-sex couple or have used a surrogate mother, had an extra-corporal, etc., they show lack of faith. Therefore such infants aren’t to be baptised, but they can be baptised when they have grown up to a certain age and voluntarily ask for baptism.
I know of one as well. His mother has since married a man and the man is beside himself trying to induce manliness in her child.
**As you know, there a plethora of difficulties, challenges, and considerations ... and such considerations touch upon theology, canon law, pastoral approach, liturgical adaptation, and sacramental recording, the monsignor added.
Why would the liturgy of a baptism need to be adjusted. Wouldn’t there be normal godparents?
The Gay Mafia will try to excoriate this guy, but the Monsignor is right. The church is willing to perform baptisms, but doesn’t want to be part of an attendant media circus, or speculations about “gay rights” etc.
If the baptism is just about the kid, without all the peripheral nonsense, the Church will perform it gladly.
That new show on HBO “The Leftovers”, about the Rapture, it shows two females driving a car, one black, one white. Then the narrator says something to the effect “Little Johnnie is being taken to school, by his mothers, when all the sudden he disappears”. This queer, degenerate garbage is all over TV and it’s being passed off as normal behavior. Makes me sick to my stomach.
5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
I’d be interested to know what the rate of sexual abuse in a homosexual household compares to in a heretosexual household.
“The Russian Orthodox Church thinks that 1) infant baptism is performed due to faith of parents, 2) if the parents are a same-sex couple or have used a surrogate mother, had an extra-corporal, etc., they show lack of faith. Therefore such infants arent to be baptised, but they can be baptised when they have grown up to a certain age and voluntarily ask for baptism.”
I would think it would be the same in the Roman Catholic Church...
John 3:5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
Rev. Matthew Henry’s Commentary
The regenerating work of the Holy Spirit is compared to water. It is also probable that Christ had reference to the ordinance of baptism. Not that all those, and those only, that are baptized, are saved; but without that new birth which is wrought by the Spirit, and signified by baptism, none shall be subjects of the kingdom of heaven.
The same word signifies both the wind and the Spirit. The wind bloweth where it listeth for us; God directs it. The Spirit sends his influences where, and when, on whom, and in what measure and degree, he pleases. Though the causes are hidden, the effects are plain, when the soul is brought to mourn for sin, and to breathe after Christ.
It’s my understanding that Catholics only baptize infants with the understanding that the parents are going to raise them in the faith. Married homosexuals, by their defiantly rebellious actions, clearly demonstrate that they have no intention of doing that.
I know physical abuse is right up there.
I know of gay woman who have been in some pretty horrific situations.
That new show on HBO The Leftovers, about the Rapture, it shows two females driving a car, one black, one white. Then the narrator says something to the effect Little Johnnie is being taken to school, by his mothers, when all the sudden he disappears.
So I am assuming that the Lesbos aren’t raptured as well with little Johnnie? That would make sense.
Legitimate question but good luck finding any unbiased data on things like that.
You would think. But this is the Vatican II Church we’re talking about.
You can’t be serious. The “Vatican” does nothing about pro-abort politicians receiving communion right in its own backyard (which goes against canon law).
I heard that homosexuality is about the actions of consenting adults in private.
When did the child consent to being brought into an “alternative lifestyle” home?
The baby doesn’t get to choose who raises him/her.
Wait for it - Baptism equality
This raises a basic problem.
Does the Catholic church permit the baptism of non-Catholic infants?
Apparently only if there is a “well founded hope” that the child will be raised as a Catholic, or if it is in danger of death before maturity.
It also requires the agreement of a lawful, single parent, so though that parent is in an unrecognized marriage, the other partner is of no moment. However, the church will likely not acknowledge their presence as a parent.
Infants become Catholic at the moment of their baptism.
Also, I don’t think a baby in a home where lesbians continue the farce that is their “marriage” can be compared with even a baby in the home of a single parent.
Since the Catholic Church DOES NOT CONDONE adoption by homosexuals, I don’t how any priest could baptise a kid being raised by two dykes or homos. They certainly are not living a Catholic life and bringing up the child in the Catholic faith. And that is asked of them at baptism. Only a whacky, liberal priest that snubs his nose at Canon Law will allow something like this.
can a person who is ineligible to receive communion in a catholic church present a child for baptism?
Every child has ONE mother and ONE father.
A homosexual presenting a child is no different than an unwed mother presenting a child alone. (if allowed)
The Catholic Church supposedly doesn’t condone abortion either.
And we have pro-abort politicians receiving communion.
Anything is possible.
That is up to their local bishops. You knew that, right?
Not that I support the “rapture” eschatological theory per se, (as in Jesus “returning” in secret to rapture his sheep before the Tribulation) but if it were true, that scenario sounds like what would happen.
The lesbians would be “left behind” while a (presumably) innocent child would be raptured to be with Jesus.
So if anything that series might tick off the GLBT’s. Which is fine by me.
The active homosexual's lifestyle is incompatible with parenting because he is continuing to sin.
The unmarried mother is not necessarily continuing to sin; she just isn't accompanied by the child's father.
It seems to be a basic flaw in the structure and hierarchy of the church (and not helped by a weak pope) that certain bishops can neglect their responsibilities so egregiously, and for such an extended period.
I don't watch HBO or any contemporary programming but it's hilarious if that's what happened in the show.
Yes, I knew that Salvation. The point is that if the bishops can change canon law to fit their views on allowing pro-abort politicians to receive communion, why not those who can receive baptism?
Under the proper conditions it would be correct. But, yes, something is wrong when bishops are allowed to go against canon law. For me, it’s the tip of the iceberg.
But, again, some of these same politicians received communion at the Papal Installation, so......
The only “pro-abort” Catholics that have excommunicated themselves and should never present themselves for communion are the politicians who publicly advocate abortion on demand and homosexual “marriage” and through their voting advocate the same things and try to make it law. These are the Pelosis of the world and really any other democrat politician.
They know they are doing wrong and stick their midle finger up to the church. People that call themselves Catholics, but have an abortion or vote for a pro-abortion candidate can go to confession and say they were wrong, be absolved of their sins and move on with their life.
No, they can't "say they were wrong" and be absolved without sincerely meaning it and recognizing the grave, sinful nature of it. Just like any sin it won't be forgiven if the confession is offered insincerely. Subsequent communion would then be an additional sin.
You know what I was talking about it. Of course they have to sincerely repent of their sin.
What does that have to do with the issue steve86 brought up: that of bishops who allow them to receive?
Bishops can tell someone till the cows come home not to go up for communion. They are ignored.
Are you saying that all of the bishops are telling them not to go up for communion? Because I’m talking about the number of bishops who are totally OKAY with them doing so. I am talking about the fact that the USCCB states that US bishops have the option of following canon law on this topic.
Any bishop that lets a notorious abortion advocate receive communion should not be a bishop. They absolutely should not be given the right to pick and choose what they want to enforce in Canon Law. This might work for conservative bishops but democrat operatives like Dolan or Weurl will use that authority to play king and snub their nose at the teachings of the church.
That is up to their local bishops. You knew that, right?
...ah, yes, Vat II collegiality in all its glory...let the local bishops run the show...what could possible go wrong...?