Skip to main content

SGN - Seattle Gay News - Page 14 - Argentine Catholic Church baptizes child of Lesbian couple - President Kirchner is godmother - Friday, April 11 2014 - Volume 42 Issue 15

The diversity of sites that Yahoo gathers with its digital 'clipping service' continues to amaze me. So do controversies such as this one.


Since we Catholics believe that baptism is required for salvation, why would there be any consideration of refusing it to a child based upon the sexual orientation or marital status of his or her parents? Is the priority of the great commission not to offer salavation to all? Why hold the child of parents of different moral, ethical, or political convictions be held as a virtual hostage, potentially endangering his or her eternal soul for something s/he has absolutely no control over whatsoever? How is that Christian??


Yes indeed this child should have been baptised... and it should hardly rate as news in any paper, magazine, or website if we took seriously our religious obligations to follow in Christ's footsteps. I pray that soon it will be true in every corner of of our fair earth and that children are not held libel in some way for the beliefs (or lack thereof) of their parents.


It's up to Christ to judge... not us. Our role in the Church is to bring as many into his grace as possible... not judge and condemn them in his stead. We can preach and teach what we believe to be the proper way to live, but we have no right to impose it on anyone. Refusing to baptize a child is akin to locking them outside the gates of salvation. Christ would never approve of such an act.


Fr. Tim





SGN - Seattle Gay News - Page 14 - Argentine Catholic Church baptizes child of Lesbian couple - President Kirchner is godmother - Friday, April 11 2014 - Volume 42 Issue 15

Comments

  1. I commend this diocese's decision. But you need to discuss this with Cardinal Oulette ( http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn/2005/jul/05071504 ).

    ReplyDelete
  2. A devils advocate argument if you will:
    When you consider the non baptized are condemned to eternity in hell, we should be baptizing anyone possible regardless of "parents" suspect political motivations for said baptism, bold and open defiance of church teaching and stated intentions of never raising said child in the Catholic faith. What is most important is that the child will be saved from the assurance of hell with the baptism.
    I guess if they had a chance of eternity without an infant baptism we may have the luxury of requiring "parental" sincerity and acceptance of the faith. If parental intention and rejection of Christianity are not important since damnation of an innocent child is in the balance, wouldn't one be justified covertly baptizing the children of non Christians to save them from assured damnation? Maybe a nurse or daycare worker should be saving souls baptizing children secretly regardless of parental religious beliefs. Why hold the child of parents of different moral, ethical, political or religious convictions a virtual hostage, potentially endangering his or her eternal soul for something s/he has absolutely no control over whatsoever? We should baptize any infant possible since eternal damnation is the only hope for the unbaptized.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But I don't consider the non baptized are condemned to eternity in hell because that is immoral.

      Delete
  3. Nor do I suspect Fr. Tim truly believes that though he seems to be suggesting it as reasoning to accept this politically motivated sideshow for the sake of the child. He seems to disagree with the church teaching that the beliefs, practices and intentions of the parents that will be raising the child should have any bearing on the decision to administer the sacrament.

    ReplyDelete
  4. @Fr. Tim, have you told the truth or have you told a lie?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Larry: Pardon? Told a truth or lie about what? That the child should have been baptized? Yes she should have. If I had a similar case come up here, it wouldn't even be an issue. I would baptize the child.

    Is this what you're asking?

    Fr. Tim

    ReplyDelete
  6. Is it true that you disagree with the churches teaching on this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Larry: First off, I disagree that what some claim (the baby should not be baptized) is in fact Church teaching. But if I am wrong and it is, then yes, I strongly disagree with it. I can see no reason whatsoever to hold an infant's innocent soul as hostage because of the lifestyle of his/her parents. To me, that is 100% in contradiction to the gospel message that Christ came to save all humankind, not just those whose parents live in accordance with Church teaching.

      Aside for all that, it is unjust in another way. Would we deny baptism to a child conceived through IVF which is contrary to Church teaching? No we wouldn't. Would we deny it if the parents were not married? No we wouldn't. So why should it be denied if the parents are a lesbian couple? It makes no sense to me at all. Let the parents carry whatever moral consequences of their actions on their own souls. It is wrong to make the child suffer as well.

      Fr. Tim

      Delete
  7. Hello Tim

    I would hold the parents of an IVF baby, unwed parents, hot/lukewarm/cold Catholics to the same requirements of Canon Law that I would hold this gay couple. If there is no reasonable hope that the child be raised in the faith that baptism should be postponed. I don't believe that was written into canon law to never be considered. Maybe the bishop saw a glimmer of hope here but from all outward appearances and statements of the lesbian couple, it is highly likely this baptism was a staged event to force the agenda for church blessing of gay marriage. From the look of social media its being hailed as a victory for "marriage equality" and one more breach of the churches moral foundation.
    They openly stated that rather than raise the child in the faith they intend to let the child choose a religion later in life, they're going on a national tour after for a media blitz with the baby and plan to meet the gay activist politician/God Parent they've never met before who sent a picture as a stand in for the ceremony. From the lesbian makeout baptismal photos before the statue of the Blessed Mother the message is pretty clear. This was all about gay marriage. If this is not reason for pause, what is?

    I do however agree that this child is blessed to be baptized and we should desire it for everyone but I don't share your fire and brimstone urgency to perform it at all costs if the parents don't have the intention of raising said child in the faith as required by Canon Law.

    I hope I'm wrong and that when these ladies hit the media circuit, they take their baptismal promises to heart and proclaim their allegiance to the Church and plans to get back to it and raise the child in the faith she's just been baptized into. I'm doubtful but then again anything is possible with God.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Sisters of Life

Here is an excellent website for any and all interested in the pro-life cause. The Sisters of Life are a religious order than began in New York City under the authority of Cardinal Jon O'Connor (RIP) in the 1980's. Their traditional religious lifestyle and clear charism have led them to grow much faster than many other orders. As a result, these wonderful women are moving beyond the boundaries of NYC and have opened a convent in Toronto. Here is a link to a news account from LifesiteNews which explains in greater detail their history and mission in Toronto. The Sisters of Life count among their numbers a woman from our Parish here in Mattawa who is soon to take her final profession. This is one of the greatest blessings that we have received as a parish. Anytime a religious vocation comes forward from a parish community, many graces flow back to the local church. I can only pray that as the Sisters of Life establish their ministry in Canada that more and more women will join
 

Canadian Euthanasia Information

The May 2010 Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Newsletter can now be found at: http://www.euthanasiaprevention.on.ca/Newsletters/Newsletter108(May2010)(RGB).pdf Bill C-384 was soundly defeated by a vote of 228 to 59. Check how the Members of Parliament voted at: http://www.euthanasiaprevention.on.ca/HowTheyVoted.pdf On June 5, 2010, we are co-hosting the US/Canda Push-Back Seminar at the Radisson Gateway Hotel at the Seattle/Tacoma Airport. The overwhelming defeat of Bill C-384 proved that we can Push-Back the euthanasia lobby in the US and Canada and convince people that euthanasia and assisted suicide are a dangerous public policy. Register for the Seminar at: http://www.euthanasiaprevention.on.ca/2010SeminarFlyer(RGB)(LetterFormat).pdf The Schindler family are being attacked by a Florida television station and Michael Schiavo. The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is standing in solidarity with the Schindler family. My blog comments: http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2010/05/att