While Jesus didn't deem it necessary to do a background check into the parents of the kids he told the disciples to allow into his presence (Matt. 9:14), conservative Catholic Bishop Robert Morlino of Wisconsin probably thinks he should have. That's why he's routing approval for all baptisms of children of gay couples through his office for pre-approval, since clearly the parents are Bad Catholics for being a gay couple and therefore it might be better to leave the kid unbaptized. The Pharisees would be proud.
Could baptizing children of gay couples become a new battleground? – Religion News Service
(RNS) Catholic leaders have carefully, if quietly, avoided doing anything to block gay couples from having their children baptized. But a new policy drafted by a Wisconsin bishop is prompting worries these baptisms may become a new battleground.
100 view(s)
Reminded me of an old story about the baptism of Mick Jagger's and Jerry Hall's daughter.
http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20197118,00.html
"[T]he gossipy London Daily Mirror and Daily Star both pointed out that the mum and pop are still unmarried. But that didn't faze presiding Rev. Ian L. Robson. Sniffed he, "I would have thought that any parents' decision to have their baby baptized should be praised, not criticized." The Archdeacon of Middlesex chimed assent: "We are, after all, christening the baby—not her mother and father.""
+John E. Bredehoft That is, in fact, the primary purpose of Baptism.
Now, as part of the ceremony (at least in the Catholic and Anglican churches), there is a commitment made by the parents and godparents (and congregation) to teach and support the child in being a good and faithful member of the church.
The concerns of the Bishop in question — echoed in an appalling number of commenters to the article — is that given that a gay couple are clearly not being faithful Catholics, to let them make that public promise and have it be accepted is scandalous. Worse, it seems likely that the child will not be raised a good Catholic by people who are such clearly bad Catholics.
To which I (and the current Pope, for that matter) say twaddle. Such a commitment is not insignificant in meaning, but it is only a secondary part of the purpose of Baptism. Checking out the actual Catholic catechism (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm):
'Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua), and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: "Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word." […] 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 nature of the representative parents has nothing to do with it, as the Pope has made clear previously.
Or the gay couple would just have to have been crazy in the first place
If I am not mistaken, anyone (even a non-believer, if they intend to facilitate entry of the one being baptized into the church) can baptize an infant. Or administer last rites. So what’s he so worked up about?
And if you disqualify parents or godparents for gay practices, then you would also need to disqualify parents or godparents who are greedy, unkind to parents…the list goes on. The entire purpose of baptism is because the person being baptized is unworthy – should the parents and godparents be held to a higher standard than the person being baptized?
I don't know about the Anglican tradition, but the Roman Catholic Church does distinguish between mortal and venial sin. I don't know which sins qualify as mortal sins, but it wouldn't floor me if ANYONE who has committed a mortal sin and has not confessed could conceivably be barred from sponsoring a baptized person. Again, I don't know the practice.
+John E. Bredehoft Precisely. There are "pastoral concerns" over the guidance and moral teaching that an obvious sinner might provide a child, but that's as true for thieves, gossipers, and people who use artificial birth control.
I was baptised with atheist parents. Soooo….
+Kingsley Lintz (Points finger, screeches like Pod People) http://goo.gl/tBxytz