Should children of same-sex 'marriages' be baptized?

In November 2008, during their 43rd annual meeting in Quebec City, Canadian canonists were asked to consider a formula for the uniform registration of the baptism of children of same-sex unions. Msgr. Pedro Lopez-Gallo of Vancouver cited the instance of a lesbian couple's approaching a parish priest in his archdiocese to ask for baptism for their child. The priest referred the matter to an archdiocesan official who advised him to defer the baptism. 

Two documents spell out basic Church legislation. First, a document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith--an Instruction on Infant Baptism (Origins 10:474-48, 1980-1981); second, canon 868 sets out two conditions for the celebration of baptism: the consent of the parents (or at least one of them), and a realistic hope that the child will be educated in the Catholic religion. Without these, baptism must be deferred. 

Some might interpret the canon as a refusal to administer the sacrament. According to c. 213, Christ's faithful have a right to be assisted by their pastors from the spiritual riches of the Church, especially by the Word of God and the Sacraments. But the infant is not yet one of the Christian faithful (c. 204). 

While sacred ministers cannot refuse the sacraments to those who request them, there are three conditions to be taken into account (c. 843 [section]1): the time must be opportune; the petitioners must be properly disposed; and they must not be prohibited by law from receiving them. Same-sex couples do not qualify. First, it is possible that they are not the parents of the child and second, because of their lifestyle they are not properly disposed so that there is little realistic hope that the child will be reared in the Catholic faith. Of course, if the child is at the point of death, the norms of c. 868 [section]2 apply. 

In January 2006, the Judicial Vicar of the Archdiocese of Vancouver sought the opinion of the Apostolic Nuncio in Canada. In his reply, the nuncio stated: "The fact that a child may be raised by a homosexual couple presents an obstacle to the Christian upbringing of the child." The rite of Baptism indicates that the parents are "the first teachers of their children in the ... faith, bearing witness to the faith by what they say and do." 

A same-sex couple even if "married" according to standards of the state cannot be said to be in good standing with the Church, even if a claim is made that they are living chastely. Their civil union can be a cause of scandal or, at least, of confusion in a parochial community. Church teaching would require their separation. 

Adoption of children of same sex "marriage" 

The question of adoption was raised. Canon 877 [section]3 is interpreted to say that children who have been adopted in accordance with civil law are considered to be the children of the person(s) who has (have) adopted them. But this has always been understood in the context of a heterosexual marriage. It was suggested that this canon might have to be changed, as will those canons referring to freedom to marry, gender identification, and others. 

The Church's position has been consistently against the adoption of children by same-sex parents. In 2003, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) wrote: "Allowing children to be adopted by persons in such (homosexual) unions would actually mean doing violence to these children in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral." (CDF: "Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons," June 3, 2003, Origins 33 [2003-2004] p.180) 

In Canada, there are other considerations. For example, some countries such as China restrict adoption of their children by homosexuals. In spite of this, some Canadian same-sex couples have adopted Chinese infants. One wonders how they were able to evade the authorities. 

Other countries have laws against artificial insemination of lesbian partners. In Canada there are no such restrictions. In a 2007 ruling of the Ontario Court of Appeal, the Court recognized three individuals as the parents of a five-year old boy: the two lesbian women raising him (one of whom is the biological mother), and the biological father who donated his sperm. (Court of Appeal for Ontario, AA vs BB 2007 Jan. 2, 2007, Docket C39998). To further complicate the matter, with the widespread donation or sale of ova and sperm to various sperm banks and fertility clinics how can one be certain, in the canonical sense, who the real father is? The same may be asked of surrogate mothers. 

Problems with in-vitro fertilization 

In vitro fertilization has resulted in an increasing number of children being conceived and growing up without knowing the identity of their biological fathers. According to the Irish Independent News (April 19, 2008) Kirk Maxey has fathered an estimated 200-400 children through sperm donation over the years. Having since fathered a child for himself, Maxey may well be concerned about all the children in his vicinity who are totally unaware of their connection to him or his son. We may visualize cases of incest or abnormal births due to innocent sibling mating. 

In the case of the Ontario man who donated his sperm and has now been granted the status of legal parenthood, if he were to bring his child to be baptized could the parish priest refuse to recognize his paternity and prevent him from signing the register as the father of the child? According to c.877[section]2 "The name of the father is to be entered if his paternity is established by some public document or by his own declaration in the presence of the parish priest and two witnesses." 

But there is another possibility not mentioned by Lopez-Gallo: Canon 877[section]2 continues: (where it is not possible to enter the name of the mother or the father) "the name of the baptised person is to be registered without any indication of the name of the father or of the parents." 

The "right" to receive Sacraments 

Msgr. Lopez-Gallo concludes that the right to receive the Sacraments is not absolute, and is subject to certain limitations (c.843[section]1). For example, although the right to marry is a natural right, it may be restricted for serious reasons such as impotency, lack of baptism, and the existence of a vow of celibacy. 

The intention of the canonical legislator is never to give the appearance of legitimacy to homosexual couples who pretend to be the "parents" of the child to be baptized. It might even be possible that they are seeking publicity under the pretext that the Church is softening its stance toward homosexuality and homosexual unions. "In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized by the state or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to the marriage state, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty." (CDF in Origins, June 3, 2003 op.cit) (One might stress that even in marriage there is no natural right to sodomy or anal sex--sex is not a recreational activity. Author), 

Lopez-Gallo reminded us also that if a child is not baptized he or she would not be eligible to attend a Catholic school in some places, and this would make it more difficult to obtain instruction in the Faith (if Catholic schools are still teaching the Faith--author). 

However, any eventual baptism should not be construed as legitimization of homosexual unions or persons who present themselves as "parents." As the Apostolic Nuncio has written: homosexual couples cannot pretend to enjoy those natural and inherent rights of parenthood, and therefore should not have any role during the celebration of Baptism, nor should they receive the special blessing normally reserved for the father or mother, nor should they be registered in the baptismal register." 

In considering whether there is hope of the child's being raised in the Catholic faith, it is not sufficient to rely on grandparents, extended family or good Christian friends to circumvent canon law. The parish priest must carefully evaluate circumstances, realizing that in this highly mobile society, the child may be forced to move with his 'family', away from the support he counted on. 

In trying to promote a common policy, Lopez-Gallo asks how does a parish priest respond? How can he be morally certain that there is a realistic hope for the child? 

The most reliable criterion would be if the couple were to separate. Although a surrogate might be used to inculcate moral principles in the child, a child learns best by example. Since not all cases can be referred to the chancery; clear guidelines should be established. Although Lopez-Gallo would prefer a special rite for these special cases he recognizes that "liturgical books are to be faithfully followed ... no one may on personal initiative add to, omit, or alter anything in those books" (c. 846[section]1). 

Listing conditions for possibly allowing such a baptism, Lopez-Gallo stresses that if it is obvious that the parents are actively promoting homosexual or legal adoption rights, prudence would demand that baptism be deferred. He indicates further that such a baptism should not be carried out during Sunday Mass or in the presence of other children being baptized. The norms of c. 877 on registration of the baptism should be followed. 

An active question period followed. One person asked: "Are the sins of the father to be visited on the sons?" He added that denying baptism was penalizing the child. Without realizing it, he reminded the group that homosexuals adopt boys, most likely to inculcate in them their chosen lifestyle. Someone suggested that adoption of children by homosexuals could be considered child abuse because it deprived them of the attention and examples of a normal mother and father, roles that God Himself had designed. Lopez-Gallo disagreed. 

J. Huels then reminded the chairman that according to c. 110, children who have been adopted in accordance with civil law are considered to be the children of those who have adopted them. 

Father Daniel Smilanic, President of the American Canon Law Society suggested that we might have to sanate [Latin. cure] the civil law that recognizes same sex unions. What he meant by that is not clear. How can we sanate a law that should never have been passed? 

Dr. Ferrari is a graduate of University of Toronto Faculty of Pharmacy, of University of Western Ontario School of Medicine, and of St. Paul University Faculty of Canon Law. Since retiring from the Federal Public Service she has worked as a free-lance writer.
Source:  http://www.thefreelibrary.com

French cardinal says 'gay marriage' opens door to incest, polygamy

Lyon, France, Sep 18, 2012 (CNA/EWTN News) - Cardinal Philippe Barbarin of Lyon said government approval of gay “marriage” in France could pave the way for the legalization of incest and polygamy.

The cardinal made his statements on Sept.14 after a meeting with France’s Interior Minister, Manuel Valls.

In an interview on French radio, Cardinal Barbarin said that same-sex unions constitute “a breakdown in society.”

“This will lead to unspeakable consequences. Next they will want unions between three or four people.  One day, perhaps, the prohibition against incest will fall,” the cardinal warned.

French President Francois Hollande promised during his campaign that if elected he would push for the legalization of homosexual marriage and adoption by same-sex couples. 

A bill that would allow such practices is currently under debate in France and is expected to come before the Council of Ministers on Oct. 24.

“Marriage is a word that represents a wall, in order to ensure that in the most fragile place of society, that is, in a woman who gives life to a child, all of the stable conditions are present to ensure that this takes place under the best of possibilities,” the cardinal said.

Admitting children of same-sex couples to Catholic elementary schools: thinking beyond the clichés

 

By Dr. Edward Peters

Original News Article

 

6 January 2004 EWTNews Brief 52609

 

DIOCESE, CATHOLIC LEAGUE DEFEND CHILDREN OF SAME-SEX COUPLE IN CATHOLIC SCHOOL

COSTA MESA, CALIF., USA, Jan. 06, 2005 (CNA) - Parents in the Diocese of Orange County have threatened to pull their children from a Catholic school and to seek the Vatican’s intervention after school officials have refused to meet their demands.

Some parents have accused the diocese of violating Church teaching by allowing a homosexual couple to enroll their two children in a Catholic school. They say the boys’ attendance in the kindergarten of St. John the Baptist School in Costa Mesa is part of the homosexual community’s efforts to change the Church, reported the Los Angeles Times.

The group demanded that the school only accept children of families that follow Catholic teachings. But school officials rejected the demand. Superintendent Fr. Gerald M. Horan said the parents’ demand is a “slippery slope” that would lead to the expulsion and ban of children whose parents divorced, used birth control or married outside the Church, he said.

Catholic League president William Donohue agreed with Fr. Horan, adding that the most important element to consider is the spiritual well-being of the children in question. “On a prudential level, it makes no sense to single out kids for retribution whose parents are gay,” said Donohue. “What should be done about kids who were born out-of-wedlock? Should we expel kids whose parents are cohabiting or are known adulterers?

“Priests have often been asked by morally delinquent parents to baptize their children, and in most instances the priests have rightfully obliged,” he continued. “Now just as the priest is in no way condoning the moral delinquency of the parents, school officials at St. John the Baptist are in no way condoning the lifestyle of the gay parents. And in both cases, the spiritual well-being of the kids is, or should be, the paramount concern.”

END

 

Opinion / Analysis

 

As the moral fabric of Western society continues to unravel, novel problems such as those facing parents, teachers, and Church officials in the Diocese of Orange—namely, how Catholic schools should handle requests to admit children of same-sex couples—will continue to arise. Moreover, as the pace of social disintegration quickens, these new problems will be both more numerous and more complex. Just ten years ago, did parents paying for their children to attend a Catholic kindergarten really have to worry about explaining (assuming it is explainable) to their own youngsters why some of their classmates have two mommies or two daddies?

 

From the outset, let's recognize that neither the opposition parents nor school officials wanted this conflict to arise. Who needs another fight these days? But arise it has, and it must be considered carefully. I do not know what the best response to this latest manifestation of social disorientation should be but, knowing of the situation only what the above article tells us, I doubt that the best answer has been hit upon yet by either side in this debate.

 

The solution proposed by the “anti-admission parents” (basically, that Catholic schools should admit only children from families that live in accord with Church teaching) is, at first glance certainly, too vague to be enforced and too severe if it could be enforced. The Church is full of sinners, and Fr. Gerald Horan is right to fear stepping onto such slippery slopes. But that does not mean that “pro-admission” voices like his and William Donohue’s are correct in their reasoning; indeed, I think some of their rhetoric introduces its own problems and makes slippery slope concessions that might be very difficult to take back in other cases.

 

Fr. Horan, for example, claims that barring children of homosexual parents from Catholic schools would lead to banning children whose parents are divorced, use birth control, or are married outside the Church. Oh, really?

 

Civil divorce is a bane built largely on sin, but divorced persons, as such, are not barred from any participation in Catholic life whatsoever. (Are there still Catholics in positions of influence who don't know this?) Why, then, use the specter of expelling children whose parents are simply divorced as an example of frightful consequences, unless one has a taste for red herring?

 

Contraception, too, is a very serious matter, but it is addressed by moral and pastoral theology, not by canon law and ecclesiastical governance. Thus parental contraception, though objectively sinful, provides no basis for consequences upon children in the external forum. (I’m assuming that contracepting parents don’t drop their kids off at Catholic school in sports cars blazoned with bumpers stickers proclaiming “Contracepting and Proud!”). Ironically, the acceptance of contraception by large numbers of Catholic laity, to say nothing of overwhelming numbers of non-Catholics, is the tap root for the gross caricature of marriage that same-sex weddings represent. On that, read experts such as Pope Paul VI or Dr. Janet Smith.

 

But, as for admitting into Catholic schools the children of those who are married outside the Church (or, while we’re at it, of couples simply cohabiting), that’s a somewhat different matter. Maybe it is time to reconsider the practice of tacit tolerance that Catholic institutions have shown on this point over the years, at least where such tolerance is being used as a wedge to widen the sore gap between Catholic principles and Catholic life in the crucial context of Catholic education. Homosexual behavior is objectively more disordered than modernity's version of concubinage, but decades of accommodating the latter have dulled our senses to its intrinsic gravity, leaving us in a weaker position to uphold marriage as Christ and His Church proclaim it.

 

Horan’s remarks are enlarged by Mr. Donohue. Leaving aside his prejudicial use of the word “retribution” (who wants to be in favor of that?), Donohue seems to have overlooked that the Church herself distinguishes between sinful actions, even grave ones, and sinful lifestyles. Sinful actions are usually treated in sacramental confession upon showing sorrow for the deed and exhibiting a firm purpose of amendment; sinful lifestyles, however, precisely because of their public nature and their persistent and defiant attitudes, can indeed provoke public consequences.

 

Moreover, surely Donohue acknowledges that Catholic schools are committed to a holistic educational approach, believing as they do that that the entire environment of a religious school contributes to the proper formation of the child. Are we suddenly to hold that, when faced with this prong of the homosexual agenda, the Church’s interest in defending the free exercise of religion within her own schools falters outside the catechism class? Are Catholic institutions so powerless over their own governance policies that surely any restriction they might wish to establish in this matter will “make no sense”? Donohue correctly points out that the children of homosexual couples have real rights, but then, do not also the children of families recognized by Christian (nay, every religious) tradition? How is it that the concerns of traditional parents are so obviously and completely wrong while those of same-sex couples are so obviously and completely right?

 

As for Donohue’s worry about what should be done with kids born out of wedlock, the answer is simple: nothing, if only because such a condition, of itself, says nothing about the lifestyle of the parents today. Donohue asks further, should we expel children whose parents are cohabiting? But, as I suggested above, while there might come a time when school practices on this point will need to be rethought, for now, the situation in Orange is more about admitting kids into elementary schools rather than expelling ones already enrolled. In other words, the problem before us is complex enough; let’s not complicate it prematurely.

 

Finally, Donohue’s baptism analogy is quite weak. For starters, the “baptize-anybody-who-asks” days are drawing to a close. Deo gratias. Such a practice is clearly at odds with the 1983 Code of Canon Law, requiring, as it does for the licit baptism of a child, a “founded hope” that the child will actually be raised Catholic (see 1983 CIC 868, and its predecessor 1917 CIC 750 suggesting the same point). Slothful clerical attitudes toward baptism and the demands of Christian living have simply enabled negligent pastors to pass along problems (invariably aggravated over time) to more conscientious persons, instead of dealing with them from the outset--and we all know where that sorry mindset has gotten us in other areas of Church life. In any case, it escapes me how Christ’s mandate to baptize all nations (Mt 28:19) and the unparalleled eschatological consequences of the sacrament of baptism are so easily parleyed into an admissions requirement for Catholic grade schools.

 

What I am suggesting is simply this: The issues raised by admitting into Catholic grade schools children from same-sex households are much deeper than implied by the statements offered so far in favor of or in opposition to such admission. Catholic schools are dogged by the impression that they are basically refuges for the rich fleeing failed public education. I think that view is unfair, but when parental contempt for the fundamental goals of Catholic education is so flagrant, how do Church officials escape the charge that one’s willingness to pay tuition is more important than one’s own willingness to live by and cooperate in the transmission of the vital values being taught? Certainly a Catholic child’s right to a Catholic education is of great importance (1983 CIC 217, 229, 793-795). But since when does this particular right become the prime directive before which all other considerations yield (1983 CIC 223)?

 

I urge that much more consideration be given to all of the demands that are made on students, parents, teachers, and administrators as the legitimate consequences of a Catholic school's very identity. ++

Source:  http://www.canonlaw.info/a_samesex.htm