Homosexual Couples Adopted Baby Baptised in Catholic Church

Canon #868 "For the licit baptism of an infant it is necessary that: 1) the parents or at least one of them or the person who lawfully takes their place gives consent; 2) There is founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion; if such a hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be put off according to the prescriptions of particular law and the parents are to be informed of the reason".

It seems obvious that two homosexual 'parents' cannot possibly have their baby baptized into the Catholic Church as it is apparent that there is no hope of their adopted child receiving the teachings of the faith from them, as they are themselves in grave apostasy to the faith in their relationship.

 

I'm not sure it is that cut and dry at least by the statement of the USCCB:

• Baptism of children in the care of same-sex couples presents a serious pastoral concern. Nevertheless, the Church does not refuse the Sacrament of Baptism to these children, but there must be a well founded hope that the children will be brought up in the Catholic religion.41 In those cases where Baptism is permitted, pastoral ministers should exercise prudential judgment when preparing baptismal ceremonies. Also, in preparing the baptismal record, a distinction should be made between natural parents and adoptive parents.

http://www.usccb.org/about/doctrine/publications/homosexual-inclination-guidelines-pastoral-care.cfm

In any event, I think the inference that somehow once again the Pope is changing "rules" is not factual and in fact not charitable toward him as this issue is clearly open to local pastoral decision making that weighs the eternal soul of an unbaptized and innocent baby and actions of parents. If we follow the logic, should a baby of heterosexuals parents be baptized if they don't attend Mass or live in an adulterous marriage?

 

i would like to quote part of the Fr Z article that Padraig provided.


Today Pope Francis followed the custom of other Popes and baptized babies in the Sistine Chapel.

But wait! There’s more!

I read in La Stampathat the parents of one of the babies isn’t married.

That is to say, the couple is civilly married but not married in the Church. My translation:

Among the baptized – according to the report in the daily “Il Tirreno” – there is also Giulia, caught of a couple married civilly but not in church. And this is certainly a novelty. Not for Bergoglio, who as a priest, bishop and cardinal baptized babies of teen mothers or unmarried couples many times. Giulia’s parents, last 25 September, had made their request to the Pope directly at the end of the Wednesday general audience. ”We were on the ‘sagrato’ (the ‘porch’ in front of the Basilica)”, Ivan Scardia recounted, the father of the baby, “when he passed by and we asked him if he could baptize our second child. He told us to get in touch with his collaborators and then they contacted us.” When the time came to send in the documents there was a glitch: “We were married at city hall. But this problem was also overcome,” Giulia’s father said.

In other news, during the baptism rite itself, there was a point when the Pope stopped saying the black and went off the cuff (big surprise there). He turned to the congregation and gave them a little talking-to.

Having listened to the Pope for a while, we are starting to hear his different voices, his moods, as it were. Frankly, he got a bit intense and serious, verging on stern.

He told them:

Don’t forget, the greatest inheritance that you can give to your children is this, the light of the faith. Hand on the faith, a strong faith that it be their salvation.



Pasted from <http://wdtprs.com/blog/2014/01/pope-francis-baptized-baby-of-couple-with-civil-marriage-only/>

 

To describe the couple as unmarried is harsh.


An article by a Cannon-lawyer makes my point in what way it is harsh.


Canon lawyer Ed Peters wrote:

The whole question of whether to baptize the baby of these parents surfaces a yet deeper question.

The only reason we describe this civilly-married Catholic couple as “unmarried” is because they apparently did not observe “canonical form” in marrying, that is, they did not marry ‘in the Church’ as required by 1983 CIC 1108, 1117. Now think about this: had two Protestants, two Jews, two Muslims, two Hindus, two Animists, two You-Name-Its, otherwise able to marry, expressed their matrimonial consent before a civil official, we Catholics would have regarded them as presumptively married. But, when two Catholics (actually, even if only one were Catholic, per 1983 CIC 1059) attempt marriage outside of canonical form, the Church regards them as not married at all. That’s a dramatic conclusion to reach based only on one’s (non)observance of an ecclesiastical law that is itself only a few hundred years old.

For more than 50 years, a quiet undercurrent of (if I may put it this way) solidly Catholic canonists and theologians has been questioning whether canonical form—a remedy that nearly all would agree has outlived the disease it was designed to cure (clandestine marriage)—should be still be required for Catholics or whether the price of demanding the observance of canonical form has become too high for the pastoral good it might serve.

Canonical form is an immensely complex topic. It has huge ramifications in the Church and it has major reverberations in the world. I am not going to discuss those here. But if the upcoming Synod on the Family and Evangelizationis looking for a topic that needs, in my opinion, some very, very careful reconsideration, that topic would be the future of canonical form for marriage among Catholics. There is still time to prep the question for synodal discussion.

For my part, I think there is too much that we just don’t know about this situation.

• We don’t know if “this problem was also overcome” means that the parents had their marriage convalidated before the baptism.
• We don’t know the circumstances that led to the civil (rather than sacramental) marriage in the first place.
• We don’t know what discussions took place between this couple and the Vatican officials who arranged the baptism.

Ultimately, it is left to the prudential judgment of the minister—priest, deacon, bishop or pope—to decide if there is “founded hope” that the child will be raised Catholic. It’s open to debate. A significant number of families who meet with me to arrange baptisms at my parish have not been married by a Catholic priest. I try to find out why, determine what we can do to resolve that situation, and seek assurance that they are serious about their faith and serious about giving the child a Catholic upbringing. After that, it’s in the hands of God.

When I began doing baptisms, I asked a priest how to handle couples who are unmarried. He put it very simply: “It’s not the baby’s fault.” You shouldn’t deny the sacrament to a child, he explained, because of the parent’s sin. Ask questions. Use common sense and discernment and your gut.

And I might add, as another priest once put it: “When in doubt, give it out.” Sometimes, it’s best to let the grace of the sacrament take root.

You never know what God has in store. (i've emboldened the paragraphs which i found particularly enlighening)



Pasted from <http://www.patheos.com/blogs/deacon...baptized-a-baby-and-thats-really-all-we-know/>

 

Padraig, i'm having difficulty identifying the article/articles where the words (or paraphrased words)
'All babies have a right to be baptised' can be found stated as uttered by Pope Francis.
Would be grateful if you could give a link.

 

The statement above, "When I began doing baptisms, I asked a priest how to handle couples who are unmarried. He put it very simply: “It’s not the baby’s fault.” You shouldn’t deny the sacrament to a child, he explained, because of the parent’s sin. Ask questions. Use common sense and discernment and your gut".
Finding guilt in the child/infant being baptized in not the issue. The issue in Canon law refers specifically to the parents/guardian acknowledging that they intend to raise their child in the Catholic faith and if not they should not be allowed to baptize the child. See how they change the argument to make baptism about the infant being at "no fault of theirs" as their justification of infant baptism, rather than the parent(s) acknowledging that they intend to raise the infant/child in the faith as Canon law teaches.

Secondly, we are not judging a single parent, married or not, as the condition of baptism. It is about their intent to raise the child in the Catholic faith that Canon Law defines as the benchmark for them receiving the sacrament.

 

To answer your question in bold..... the issue in Canon Law is in reference to whether the parent/parents/guardian intends to raise the infant/child in the faith. That is the issue. Very difficult to raise a child in the faith if one does not intend to practice it themselves, right? Once again, Canon Law #868 is very clear on the conditions of infant baptism. It is in the will of the parent/parents/guardian to raise the child in the faith. Period.

 

View attachment 1844

I am sorry Scolaire I think this may be a little more than, 'The odd mistake'. If a parish priest were do this I might agree for it has little impact on the Church overall but when a Pope, the Head of the Church does it he sets a precedent which the whole of the Church will of course follow. Every priest, Bishop and Cardinal from Hong Kong to Honolulu, from San Franciso to Berlin will be doing the exact same thing as the Pope from now until this thing stops. So it is not an, 'odd mistake ' in practical terms the Pope is laying down pastoral ground rules for the whole of the Church. Moreover in practical terms by allowing the Archbishop of his former see to act as he did the following ground rules for priests and lay people in the Entire Universal Church have been laid.

1 It is fine for a Pope arbitarily and off his own bat and at will to change the teachings and laws of Holy Mother Church as he wills, without formal consultation from the Church at large.

2. It is now fine for babies to be baptised whatever the status of the parents as regards to the Church.

4. It is now fine for the godparent of the bay to be not only a non practising Catholic but to be publically and actively opposed to the Church on issues such as abortion and homosexual , 'marriage', both abominations in the eyes of God and right thinking people everywhere.

5. It is correct from Bishops to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation to admit practising, 'married' homosexuals.

I am sorry I do not consider these things to be a , 'Small mistake' They are an abomination which will draw the righteous wrath of God on the heads of us all. Wait and see God is not mocked.

I have been slow to speak out about Pope Francis but have been very,very concerned about him for quite some time. But like Mary I have stored these things in my heart.

But now is the time to make a stand. Like the Watchman I must speak out or take the consequences of these gravest of sins, this abomination, on my own head. I must sound the horn of warning.

Ezekiel 33:6

Ezekiel as Israel's Watchman
…5'He heard the sound of the trumpet but did not take warning; his blood will be on himself. But had he taken warning, he would have delivered his life. 6'But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet and the people are not warned, and a sword comes and takes a person from them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood I will require from the watchman's hand.' 7"Now as for you, son of man, I have appointed you a watchman for the house of Israel; so you will hear a message from My mouth and give them warning from Me.…

 

What is happening in the Ukraine is no accident then. The Chalice of the Justice of God is running over.

God's Wrath, it seems, is about to come upon us all,the timing of these events connected with these abominations and make no mistake they are abominations, is clear. :


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26910210

 

This also makes it difficult to defend Catholic teaching on the sanctity of marriage and the sins of cohabitation and same sex relationships.

Sure, the Church is baptising their children so it must be all right, it's catching up with the times at last and so should you!

What is being overlooked too is that the couple apparently received the sacrament of confirmation.

Confirming them in sin in the house of God is not only a scandal but an abomination!

I am a sinner but my Catholic gut is sounding alarm bells - there is something deeply uncatholic about all of this.

But, hay, maybe I am one of those hypocrites the Lord warned us all about!

 

Heartbreaking to even contemplate. Why is the pope putting a basket over the light?

 

It also gives a green light to progressive 'reformers' and apostates within the Church to continue their demands that the Church has to be updated to fit into the modern world.

http://www.associationofcatholicpriests.ie/2014/03/pope-francis-has-opened-a-door-let-us-enter/

A door has been opened in the Church for the smoke of satan to enter.

 

I agree with your 'unpopular' opinion. This is at the heart of Pope Francis' action. The Pope is not condoning the life style or behaviour of parents, he is, instead focusing on the child. He believes that if a couple present their child for baptism with good intention, it would be quite wrong to refuse.

I would add to this that Catholic teaching has always said all of us are able to baptize in an emergency. And in such cases, we clearly might have no idea about the status of the child's parents.

I accept Padraig's response regarding not necessarily accepting everything a Pope might say but we do need to be very careful if we start to go down that path. When I look at some of the comments above, I am wondering how soon the MDM messages might start to be promoted on this forum!

 

This really is a complicated question. your comment reminded me that I held an impromptu emergency baptism of all of my nieces and nephews at my mom's house years ago, with the permission of their apostate parents. My unspoken rationalization was that an emergency existed, in that my brothers are idiots! This gave me license, as their godmother, to remind the children about faith issues and teach the faith in odd moments. I give them all an extra faith-based Christmas gift each year. if not for this opportunity, these children would never have had any catechesis at all, not to mention the unfathomable gift of baptism!

 

Let us be glad that we aren't the ones who have to answer to God for these confusing actions. We must continue to pray for these Shepard's because their burden is great and actions weak and lukewarm at times. I know that in the end confusion fits right in as a 'sign of the times'.

God Bless!

 

Perhaps the Pope was mis-quoted.




I don't see why babies should be excluded from being baptised because of their parents lifestyle - what about those who are co-habiting and having their children baptised, some never to darken the church again until 1st Holy Communion.

(Jesus said: "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." Matt 19:14)

 

I remember reading once that the gift of baptism is so essential to the life of the soul that the child's right to be baptized is equal to the child's right to be loved. I would have a very hard time condemning anyone who wants to offer that gift to a child, regardless of its parents' state in life. And I must admit I am a little horrified at the lack of charity in the entire thrust of this thread.

CCC 1257: The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are 'born of water and the Spirit'. God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

CCC 1261: 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 unto me, do not hinder them,' 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 Baptism.

 

We knew from scripture that all these things must happen first. When people ask me about "bad" Popes in the Church, and there have been many, I try to remind them to read the gospels about Jesus in front of the magisterium. If we remember, the high priest that year (basically the Pope for the Jews), said as he condemned Jesus that it was better for one man to die, than many. Whether it was good or bad, the high priest was acting on the will of God as is pointed out right there. Now one thing Jesus promised was that if we follow the doctrine of His Church we will never be condemned. No Pope has the authority to change Jesus' teachings. If there is a dispute on a matter, the Pope has final say after consulting the Holy Spirit. This happened between the Apostles and Peter, but that does not mean that Peter was always in the right in other matters as we also see. We know in the end there will be very few faithful as Jesus Himself points out. It is so hard to tell people the Truth when higher ups in the Church are confusing them. People want to sin. Sin is a temptation because it feels good. People will follow whatever teacher tells them it is ok to sin. But we are children of the Light, and therefore we must have hope and hold our heads up. I too am withholding judgement on the Pope and praying for him and all the leaders in the Church. I think the Church is about to be made a lot smaller in number. It will be the Eucharist and the sacraments that bring Jesus true followers to her altars and they will probably have to walk through fire and hate to prostrate themselves in front of the tabernacle and worship Him, as many will try to change the Church. We have been seeing this for years anyway. May God Bless and keep all of us in this troubling time of humanity.

 

But Adoremus I don't think anybody here disputes the importance of baptism and would always agree that it would be best to err on the side of doing the baptism where facts are maybe a little unclear.

That said the philosophy behind baptism, as I understand it, is that, like pretty much every other grace in the church, it must be voluntarily chosen by the person concerned using their free will, you cannot force it on people. Obviously then that would rule out infant baptism, because the child is not old enough to make the decision, but in this case the Church makes an exception on the grounds that the parents and Godparents undertake, indeed swear, to teach the child the faith. Its a bit peculiar but you can see how it should work out, the parents are able to assure the Church that the child will have all the knowledge necessary to make a proper baptism in time and the parents can then make the decision for the child in advance like this.

But how does that work out if for example the parents bringing the child up are a lesbian couple who show no intention at all of living according to Church doctrine? Then that contract kind of breaks down and that yes we would still hope that the child would get baptised but surely he/she should wait until they are of age to do it themselves because the parents/Godparents proxy kind of decision has broken down?

Anyway hopefully the answer to this is posted above, that there is a mistranslation somewhere and the Pope didn't mean to indicate that infant baptisms are permitted in absolutely all cases.

 

Just on the question of the Pope in general: yes unfortunately I agree with you Padraig that this Pope is not really laying the proper emphasis, sometimes, from the point of view of sincere Catholics who are currently being ground down in a Godless world and even at times in a careless Church. (The Church is very careless of proper doctine in these parts nowadays, I think, because even in the Cathedral they end up the mass with "and now lets have a great round of applause for..."!)

But this Pope has come for all the rest of them, to reach out to those who have left the Church maybe and to Protestants etc, and you know on that score he has been a great success and thats why I like him.