Being the smart-ass 5th graders that we were, I remember asking the nun: But what if you were stranded in the desert w/o water-- could you use sand? I thought the nun said it would be OK, but maybe my memory is flawed.
As an aside, it was over this very issue (unbaptized people going to hell) that marked the beginning of the end of my faith, right around that time-- 5th grade. “But Sister, that just isn’t fair!” “We can’t judge what God does as being fair or not.” The real end came about 3 years later, and I’ve been happily religion-free ever since!
Well, I don’t know about the rest, but I know for a fact that the Catholic Church can and has baptized illegitimate children, because my nephew was baptized. And yes, the priest was aware that my sister was not married.
Happy Scrappy Hero Pup I’m confused. I thought that the doctrine of transubstantiation was that the wafer and wine became the literal body and blood of Christ, leaving only the outward appearance unchanged, and that this transformation was a physical reality and not merely symbolism. Even that heretic Martin Luther said that the blood and flesh were there “in, with, and under” the appearance of wine and wheat.
Smiling Bandit If I’ve read your posts here correctly, you’ve said ‘You’re wrong!’. Could you explain why? As I understand it (being Jewish and all) the Catholic belief is that all humans are born tainted by Original sin and thus condemned to Hell. Baptism in the Blood Of The Lamb washes away sin and allows us to enter Heaven. I can’t remember the Latin “No salvation outside The Church.”. The parents may be damned by their own actions. However, the infant is damned only by the sin of Adam and the Church may save the child through baptism. By withholding the sacrament, the Church condemns the child for the actions of the parents.
BUT
You’ve all missed the real issue. These children must be baptized for their own safety. Unbaptized children. An epidemic of childhood obesity. Don’t you see? The flying ointment of a witch contains various ingredients. But the primary one is fat from an unbaptized child. Even now, Satan’s minions smile and prepare their knives, their mortars, their darkly-stained pestles. Do you want these children to die at the hands of the Devil’s servants? Do want witches and warlocks filling the skies like a swarm of locusts?
I would suspect that the response would be that this was the failing of that particular priest for going against the Catholic Church’s dictates - no idea what the claim would be for the state of the boy’s soul, however.
I’m familiar with a somewhat similar circumstance, in that the priest who married my (now-lapsed) Catholic husband and I (not a Catholic) knew that we were cohabiting and sexually active before the wedding.
Illegitimate children are not damned by nature of being born illegitimate. And confession and shriving of a nonmarital relationship (of any kind, homosexual or not- issues of nature aside) allows a single parent to baptize a child.
The problem with a continuing physically-intimate relationship (homosexual OR nonmarital) is that the principals in that relationship are deliberately continuing to live in defiance of Church Law, rendering them unable to effectively impart Christian values.
I have, in fact, more issue with an unmarried heterosexual couple engaging in the Sacrament of Baptism than I do a homosexual couple- the heterosexual couple CAN sanctify their relationship in the eyes of God yet do not, while the homosexual couple does not have this opportunity.
Come off it, man. We are commanded to love our neighbor, not put up with our neighbor’s jackassery.
They’re each. They’re both. They’re neither. It’s an article of faith. Christians have been persecuted because of the misguided belief that we practice cannibalism, so it’s easy to understand your confusion. But if I see you at my house with a torch and a pitchfork, I’m going to have to explain myself further from the happy side of a shotgun full of rock salt.
Oh, and Doc? There is no Hell. A Catholic who brings Hell into the discussion is an ill-educated Catholic, since the Vatican itself has no position on its existence or whether anyone would be there if it did.
The Baptism is still valid; however, it was the fault of the priest- you’re supposed to investigate such things.
It’s a personal question, and you don’t have to answer it, but, before you were married, you did attend Confession, yes? And in that Confession, should you confess to the sins of extramarital fornication with the good-faith belief that you won’t do it again (you are getting married, after all), then you ought to be all good on that.
What a racket they’ve got going. Somehow the priests have convinced people that they’re necessary. For most of history no priest was necessary for a couple to be married. All it took was for them to cohabitate and declare they were a couple. It wasn’t until the Coucil of Trent in 1563 that the church ruled that a priest and two witnesses were required. It wasn’t until the Marriage Act 1753 that registration of marriage was required in the Britain.
It has naught to do with the OP. Rather it addresses your comment, which was quoted in my post. If you have a problem with my point being off-topic, then you must consider your own post as not contributing to the thread.
Even that one small part of my post? Not that either.
My “problem” had to do with heterosexual unmarrieds AND BAPTISM, making the case that there was more willful disobedience inherent in that situation than in one involving a homosexual couple AND BAPTISM.
The eyes of Church Law circa 1400’s England and its interchangeability with the laws of England in the 1400’s has nothing to do with whether it is appropriate to perform a religious service on a child who is legitimized by a secular service SEPERATE from a similar religious one in 2000-era Canada.
We’re talking about the Church’s adherence to its own rules, remember?
I see people must spell out all the steps for you get the point.
Wrong. The OP was talking about the mean-spirited vindictiveness of the Chruch. Comments since have wandered down many tangents. Not the least of which is your claim that a heterosexual couple’s relationship is not sanctified in the eyes of God because they haven’t been married by clergy. By pointing out that the Church didn’t even require Priests to be involved until the 1500s, I show you that obviously God (assuming for argument’s sake that it even exists) sanctifies whatever relationships he will without involvement of the Priests. All it takes is for two people to declare themselves married, or else all those marriages before 1563 were profane. Likewise I don’t think you’ve got a leg to stand on to claim God doesn’t sanctify homosexual relationships just because Priests refuse to do so. They’ve bamboozled people into thinking they’re a conduit and they control God’s blessings.
If you want to defend rules as rules, that’s one thing. But you claimed the priests had the exclusive ability to sanctify a relationship, which is disputable.
Yeah, that “turn the other cheek” and “who calls another man a fool may be sent to hell” stuff was just Jesus running his mouth off as usual. Hey, not even a Messiah’s at his best all the time, some of his stuff was probably said while his mouth was full and stuff and that’s why we have the Annointed like Happy Scrappy to interpret, far better than God ever could, the word of God.
I see that I have to spell out all the steps for you.
With regard to withholding the baptism of children of homosexual parents. THEREFORE, we should show that the Church ought NOT simply pick on homosexual parents, since many of the reasons they give are also applicable to unmarried heterosexuals.
BUT, if you don’t want me (someone who has been derided as a Catholic apologist before and will be again) agreeing that the Church (or at least one of its representatives) is being heavy-handed and cherry-picking here, I don’t have to.
But, of course, you see a Catholic and you rush to slam him, regardless of whether he agrees with you. Nice work, jackass.
(spelling fixed by me)
Oh, this is the best you can do, Sampiro? Decontextualized Bible quotes and shrill-betty sarcasm?
Then again, I’ve seen how you flail at those who disagree with you, so I guess I got off light.
Pray enlighten, Rabbi. We know what Jesus said, but please tell us what he meant to say. I always took the “turn the other cheek/give him your cloak also/don’t call a man a fool/love those who would do you harm” statements as a general not-easy-to-follow-but-somehow-admirable call for Christian passivity and respect (as practiced in sacking Jerusalem during the Crusades or bombing Baghdad in the current era), but would like to read your take.
Neither of us attended Confession. I wasn’t a Catholic before the marriage and I told the priest I had no intention of converting. My husband hasn’t been to Confession in… I have no idea how long. Probably for years before our marriage, at least. We did, however, agree to not be sexually intimate until the wedding (and adhered to that) - the whole issue came up at the talk with the priest a couple months or whatever before the ceremony. I suspect there was supposed to be an implied “and go confess your sin of having sex before marriage” in with that.
I do have to add that I don’t really see the big deal in a serious fashion. If you’re gay and sexually active, you’re going to be excluded from a lot of religious denominations anyway, so of course they’re going to have an issue with dealing with your kids, and you’d be better off finding a church that accepts you. Churches aren’t obliged to handle sacraments for people who don’t fit their beliefs.
I am aware, however, that Roman Catholicism especially has a “cultural” element to it - my husband does not believe in a fair number of Catholic beliefs/tenets/principles and has still found it difficult to declare his separation from the Roman Catholic Church. On the other hand, I grew up in a rather strict denomination of the Reformed Churches of America, and finally rebelled in my teenage years when I just couldn’t take it any longer. My parents had gone there only because that’s how they were raised. We ended up switching to the United Church of Christ, the most tolerant Christian denomination I can think of. (They ordain gay/lesbian ministers, and recently voted in favor of accepting gay marriage.)
The wording is: I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit(or Ghost).
Course, there is also the baptism by desire where an individual desperately wants to be baptised and become a christian, but dies before the baptism can occur but is still saved. Totally muddies the water.
Well, I’m Catholic too and I have a teeny problem with the situation outlined in the OP nyself. Ya see, the Holy Church baptizes the children of Mafia dons (for example), and gives these Dons fancy funerals when da boys whack them. To me, killers and thieves and straight adulterers are far worse than gays. I can say that because I are one. It’s two faced and is a gross double standard. But all that aside, it alienates the parents or guardians, turning them even further away from the Church and seems to punish the chikd too. So, as a Catholic, I call bullshit on the whole stupid policy.
Ack, forgot to mention this in my post. Being a Chicagoan, I know this well. I think that for most Mafia, etc., types - unless they’ve had any jail time - have a level of “plausible deniability,” while unless you’re a closeted gay person, the priests can say you’re definitely a “sinner,” while Mr. Enzo over there is a legitimate businessman. At least, I’d hope that very few priests these days are helping out the “out” gangsters…
