Quote from: Guest

Quote from: poche

Quote from: Guest

If you think it was to be deferred and you are also docile to authentic Catholic Commentaries and Church Authorities; then you should not be arguing for the legitimacy of the baptism, because traditional Catholic Commentaries and teaching (the only real types there are) state that certain conditions have to be met, and clearly this case they are not.

The opinions and interpretations of provocative rebellious Lesbians who are living in defiance of God and Church, probably formal apostates and heretics, and the opinions of liberal or heretical Novus Ordo clerics are of no value to real Catholics.

They are all guilty of terrible scandal, and of political maneuvering in efforts to punitively legitimize sodomy.

If you object to the baby's baptism now and you object to a deferral then what you are saying is that you want this child to be condemned to Hell. What you just said is an injustice. A deferral means that the baptism is delayed to a later date when either the situation of the child's hiomelife changes or until the child reaches an age in which she can and is willing to make her won profession of faith in the true Catholic religion.  

Poche,

Where does it say that Guest objects to a deferral??

When it says;

 If you think it was to be deferred and you are also docile to authentic Catholic Commentaries and Church Authorities; then you should not be arguing for the legitimacy of the baptism, because traditional Catholic Commentaries and teaching (the only real types there are) state that certain conditions have to be met, and clearly this case they are not.

There is no objection to deferral in that post.

Poche,

Of course people should be baptized if and when conditions permit.

But if you recognize that it should have been deferred, why are you arguing in favor of it having happened?

When I first heard of this I scratched my head and asked myself what were they thinking. The 1983 code says that there has to be a reasonable expectation that the child will be brought up in the faith or the baptism should be deferred. But then there was the press report that the bishop had required that the child be given a spiritual guide who would be the real godparent and subsequently I read in the 1917 code of Canon law that this provision was written into the older code.
There is another thing I would like you to consider. This is taking place in Argentina which is fara way from most of us. The only place that they are talking about this is here. My family has had prior experience with the press. When tragedy struck us reporters came from everywhere. When some one spoke to them the reporters would write something completely different from what was said. Reporters sometimes do that. Somebody says something they write something else. We only know the sensationalist highlights that look really bad. There are very likely situations behind the scenes that we don't know about.  

Quote from: poche

Quote from: Guest

Poche,

Of course people should be baptized if and when conditions permit.

But if you recognize that it should have been deferred, why are you arguing in favor of it having happened?

When I first heard of this I scratched my head and asked myself what were they thinking. The 1983 code says that there has to be a reasonable expectation that the child will be brought up in the faith or the baptism should be deferred. But then there was the press report that the bishop had required that the child be given a spiritual guide who would be the real godparent and subsequently I read in the 1917 code of Canon law that this provision was written into the older code.
There is another thing I would like you to consider. This is taking place in Argentina which is fara way from most of us. The only place that they are talking about this is here. My family has had prior experience with the press. When tragedy struck us reporters came from everywhere. When some one spoke to them the reporters would write something completely different from what was said. Reporters sometimes do that. Somebody says something they write something else. We only know the sensationalist highlights that look really bad. There are very likely situations behind the scenes that we don't know about.  

I do not trust the media either; I agree they often misrepresent, sensationalize, and outright lie.

The photos show the proud overt lesbians and portray what a publicity stunt it was.

The bare facts seem pretty bad though.

I agree the facts seem pretty bad. There is proabably more than one grandmother or aunt or uncle who are in tears over all of this.