Tuesday, October 29, 2002

Phelps to picket Lexington Cathedral.

For what - baptizing the quads because their father and his partner are gay, or baptizing them because they're babies? If he's a consistent Baptist, seems like the latter would be as much a sin as the former.

Some have wondered why I've not commented on this yet. I posted it over at HMS, and I try not to duplicate, but my view is pretty simple, and in conflict with some. Of coure the babies should have been baptized. We fought about this at HMS several weeks ago, and no one has convinced me otherwise. I do believe, however, that the baptism should have been private, not publicized, and the men shouldn't have been blessed. No matter what the priest says, blessing them as a couple implies...blessing their coupledom. I'd be interested in what David has to say about this, but he hasn't posted on his blog in a while. Everything okay, David?

And before you post a comment, remember this - the subject of the baptism is the child. There is, of course, a communal dimension, but in our last discussion on this, I was really struck by something Charles Collins, whose worked in a tribunal and who is now with Vatican Radio said in response to those who wouldn't want the babies baptized - Okay. You want to minister to the kids. You want to bring them closer to Christ. But you can't even start to do that properly until they're in the Church. Baptism does not imply approval of family situations, although in this day and age in which sacraments have become mostly social occasions to celebrate the greatness of the individual and his or her family, one might get that impression. Baptism is the first step in the lifelong journey towards the fullness of life with Christ. But I do think in a situation like this, the baptism should be private, with only the "parents" and godparents, and in the context of a parish that can differentiate between the sins of the fathers and the innocence of the children.

No comments:

Post a Comment