Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Anσnymσus Posts Allowed => Topic started by: Änσnymσus on March 29, 2014, 08:53:02 AM

Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on March 29, 2014, 08:53:02 AM
"Married Lesbian couple" to have daughter baptized -
and first the "two mothers" will be confirmed in the Cathedral
Where else? In Argentina, ¡naturalmente!

From La Voz:


Daughter of two mothers will be baptized in the Cathedral
Next Saturday, April 5, Umma Azul will be baptized in the Cathedral [of Córdoba, Province of Córdoba, Argentina] and president Cristina Fernández [de Kirchner] could be the godmother.

She is the daughter of Karina Villarroel and Soledad Ortiz, the two Cordoba women who contracted matrimony a little over a year ago, and regarding whom a controversy came about due to the request for leave [for matrimonial reasons] in the Provincial Police by the first one. [The civil "marriage" of same-sex couples has been legal in Argentina since 2010.]
...
Karina and Soledad had to demand the authorization of the Archdiocese. "I had an audience with Archbishop Carlos Ñáñez so that he would give the order, and he confirmed to me that there will be no problem in the Cathedral," she explained. [The Cathedral] Parish priest Carlos Varas will preside at er the ceremony

The two ladies will receive Confirmation on the same day and, at 10:30 the baptism of Umma Azul will take place, with a godfather who is a friend of the family and two godmothers, the President and a friend.
...
Meanwhile, Karina, who belongs to the police force of the Province, is still struggling for the recognition of a legal demand of a 180-day maternity leave, even though she was not the pregnant mother. ... The Police assured that the woman abandoned the job.

La Nación adds that "this will be, acccording to Church sources, 'the first baptism of the child of a homoparental [sic] family' to be celebrated in a Catholic building in the country."
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: jman123 on March 29, 2014, 08:57:59 AM
These are the fruits of Jorge Mario Bergoglio's papacy.  Horrible.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Tiffany on March 29, 2014, 09:40:36 AM
This is in the NO?
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Frances on March 29, 2014, 01:25:49 PM
 :dancing-banana:
If SSPX goes under Rome, it's only a matter of time before this shows up in "traditional" chapels.  I'm not terribly worried because I won't be there!
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: JezusDeKoning on March 29, 2014, 03:43:06 PM
They need to be locked up for child abuse. I can't help but pray that little girl gets put into a real family.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Ambrose on March 29, 2014, 03:45:29 PM
Quote from: Frances
:dancing-banana:
If SSPX goes under Rome, it's only a matter of time before this shows up in "traditional" chapels.  I'm not terribly worried because I won't be there!


One has to hope that the SSPX will not drop that low.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Memorare on March 29, 2014, 03:57:17 PM
Does anyone have a link to this info?


Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on March 29, 2014, 05:48:48 PM
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Frances
:dancing-banana:
If SSPX goes under Rome, it's only a matter of time before this shows up in "traditional" chapels.  I'm not terribly worried because I won't be there!


One has to hope that the SSPX will not drop that low.


Maybe they will be the chosen ones to explain this in the Light of Tradition, you know, Hermeneutic of Continuity.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: parentsfortruth on March 29, 2014, 07:16:18 PM
http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/155601/c%C3%B3rdoba-archbishop-oks-baptism-for-samesex-couple%E2%80%99s-baby

Want CFK to be godmother
Friday, March 28, 2014
Córdoba Archbishop OKs baptism for same-sex couple’s baby
By Jayson McNamara
Herald Staff

The two-month-old daughter of a lesbian couple currently involved in a labour dispute with Córdoba province Police over one of the mother’s right to maternity leave, will, on April 5, become the first child of a same-sex couple to be baptized by the Argentine Catholic Church.

Church officials yesterday confirmed that Córdoba Archbishop Carlos Ñáñez had, based on “general recommendations,” granted the baptism of Umma Azul, the daughter of Soledad Ortiz and Karina Villarroel.

“We had a hearing with Archbishop Ñáñez and he told us there was no problem in our daughter being baptized in the Cathedral,” confirmed Villarroel, who indicated to the local daily La Voz del Interior newspaper they planned to ask President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner to be the girl’s godmother.

“The other day we heard from the Office of the President asking about the date of the baptism as they want to participate,” she said.

Ortiz and Villarroel, married just under a year ago, are currently involved in an ongoing dispute with Córdoba Police after they refused to grant Villarroel maternity leave on the grounds she did not carry the girl through pregnancy. Villarroel was eventually dismissed from the force by the province’s Police Conduct Tribunal for not showing up to work.

Warming Church?

Alex Freyre, a gαy-rights activist, told the Herald he largely agreed with those who said Pope Francis was at least indirectly to thank for this development.

“The media wants a gαy-friendly pope and so too does society,” he said. “The fact that he is Argentine and he senses the exposure gαy-rights issues get in this country, I think is a good thing and it helps.”

But Freyre, who was part of the first gαy couple to marry in Argentina, also had words of caution.

“The Church accepts ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs themselves, but not ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity in practice. So in terms of sin, this girl is not at fault for her mothers being gαy or not. It’s an interesting development because in another era this wouldn’t have happened,” he explained.

Archbishop Ñáñez had allegedly given the priest who will perform the cermony, Carlos Varas, special instructions about registering the baptism, though court officials did not provide details.

In September of last year, a row erupted in the UK between a lesbian couple, Aimi and Victoria Leggett, and a now retired priest from the Church of England over the registration of both women as mothers on their son Alphie’s baptism certificate.

Rev. George Gebauer had first refused to perform the ceremony, and later told the couple that at best only one of the mothers could appear on the boy’s baptism certificate, with the other registered as the godmother.

He was later rebuked by the Church, with the baptism going ahead under a different priest, and both women registered as the boy’s mothers.

“There are many gαy couples who have been educated in the ʝʊdɛօ-Christian culture who want to be accepted by a Church that has so often rejected it,” stressed Freyre. “It has to do with people’s search for happiness.”

The baptism of Umma Azul, who was born on January 27, will take place on Saturday April 5 at 10.30am in the Señora de la Asunción Cathedral in Córdoba City.

@jaysonmcnamara
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Memorare on March 29, 2014, 08:51:35 PM
Thank you
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on March 29, 2014, 09:50:32 PM
Quote from: jman123
These are the fruits of Jorge Mario Bergoglio's papacy.  Horrible.


These are the fruits of the V2 Revolution.

The fruits are now ripening under the Bergoglio/Francis nontificate. Begoglio is the current Presider Over Apostasy, who it taking things to the next level.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on March 29, 2014, 10:00:49 PM
Quote from: Memorare
Does anyone have a link to this info?




http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/03/married-lesbian-couple-to-have-daughter.html
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Sigismund on March 29, 2014, 10:18:16 PM
I am not sure I oppose the baptism of the child.  Confirming the two women is clearly not a Catholic act, and is actually sacrilege.  
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Ambrose on March 30, 2014, 12:55:58 AM
Quote from: Sigismund
I am not sure I oppose the baptism of the child.  Confirming the two women is clearly not a Catholic act, and is actually sacrilege.  


Unrepentant public sinners who have no intention to raise the child in the Faith have always been denied baptism for their child.  It is a sad reality, as no one likes to see a child deprived of Baptism.

These woman are committed to their public sins and even consider themselves married.  This case is a no brainer.  
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on March 30, 2014, 01:28:56 AM
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Sigismund
I am not sure I oppose the baptism of the child.  Confirming the two women is clearly not a Catholic act, and is actually sacrilege.  


Unrepentant public sinners who have no intention to raise the child in the Faith have always been denied baptism for their child.  It is a sad reality, as no one likes to see a child deprived of Baptism.

These woman are committed to their public sins and even consider themselves married.  This case is a no brainer.  


Even according to Can. 868 §1. For an infant to be baptized licitly:

1/ the parents or at least one of them or the person who legitimately takes their place must consent;

2/ there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion; if such hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be delayed according to the prescripts of particular law after the parents have been advised about the reason.


Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Memorare on March 30, 2014, 08:46:19 AM
Here's the link that "guest" posted.

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/03/married-lesbian-couple-to-have-daughter.html?m=1

Thanks.  The other link made no mention of the couple being confirmed but this link does.

I left the episcopal church in 2006 because they voted in an openly gαy homo bishop in New Hampshire.  It took me two more years to research/educate and decide to become catholic.  The teaching on life issues no abortion open to life and stance on homos, real presence , brought me to the church. Have to admit.... This tidbit shakes my faith in the church.  People should be very concerned because what's the next step? What will happen next?

Are we sure this is a "real" catholic dioceses? Know how you read about a "catholic" church ordaining women and such and they aren't real catholics. What's the Vatican saying about this?

I'm shaken. Seems like everytime I try to find the truth, satan steps on it. Somewhere somehow.

How does a catholic survive this? What's going on! Does satan have the church now?
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on March 30, 2014, 10:35:42 AM
Quote from: Memorare
Here's the link that "guest" posted.

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/03/married-lesbian-couple-to-have-daughter.html?m=1

Thanks.  The other link made no mention of the couple being confirmed but this link does.

I left the episcopal church in 2006 because they voted in an openly gαy homo bishop in New Hampshire.  It took me two more years to research/educate and decide to become catholic.  The teaching on life issues no abortion open to life and stance on homos, real presence , brought me to the church. Have to admit.... This tidbit shakes my faith in the church.  People should be very concerned because what's the next step? What will happen next?

Are we sure this is a "real" catholic dioceses? Know how you read about a "catholic" church ordaining women and such and they aren't real catholics. What's the Vatican saying about this?

I'm shaken. Seems like everytime I try to find the truth, satan steps on it. Somewhere somehow.

How does a catholic survive this? What's going on! Does satan have the church now?


The writings of St. Alphonsus are a great source. Read and pray.

Satan is batting for your soul!  
Do not waver, pray constantly, keep seeking the truth.  
Just as Our Lord demands the Faith of the martyr's from us, so does Satan relish the capture of a soul fervent with love of Our Lord.
You would be quite a treasure for him if he gets you.

Keep close to Our Lady, enlist more friends to pray for you - Purgatorial Souls, and you will have souls praying fervently and ETERNALLY grateful for your assistance.

Pax Christi!
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Memorare on March 30, 2014, 10:43:12 AM
Thank you! Sitting outside the church and don't want to go in :-( just being honest.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Ambrose on March 30, 2014, 02:14:27 PM
Quote from: Memorare
Here's the link that "guest" posted.

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/03/married-lesbian-couple-to-have-daughter.html?m=1

Thanks.  The other link made no mention of the couple being confirmed but this link does.

I left the episcopal church in 2006 because they voted in an openly gαy homo bishop in New Hampshire.  It took me two more years to research/educate and decide to become catholic.  The teaching on life issues no abortion open to life and stance on homos, real presence , brought me to the church. Have to admit.... This tidbit shakes my faith in the church.  People should be very concerned because what's the next step? What will happen next?

Are we sure this is a "real" catholic dioceses? Know how you read about a "catholic" church ordaining women and such and they aren't real catholics. What's the Vatican saying about this?

I'm shaken. Seems like everytime I try to find the truth, satan steps on it. Somewhere somehow.

How does a catholic survive this? What's going on! Does satan have the church now?


You have been given a great grace to come out of Protestantism.  Your conversion, however, has happened at a great time of crisis for the Church.  The Catholic Church is living under the greatest attack it since the beginning.  

We are now living in a state of sedevacante.  Francis is not a Pope, and most dioceses throughout the world are also in a state of sedevacante.  These are very confusing times, and it will take great fortitude and patience to work through theses issues.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Memorare on March 30, 2014, 03:27:45 PM
Thank you very much. I do not have a traditional parish to attend, no where near I'm afraid. Luckily I'm surrounded by good catholic friends who follow the church teachings, but are really oblivious of such things as this going on... Some days though make me wonder if I should have just stayed with the southern baptist church that I grew up in...you won't see a lesbain couple there trying to become members...etc. I've been on a long long journey to the church and now that I'm here... Sigh. I don't know what to do. My husband isn't catholic I'm trying to raise my children catholic and it's just hard. All the way around it's hard!

Thank you Ambrose and "guest" for your kind words.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on March 30, 2014, 03:39:18 PM
The article is silly. The daughter does not have "mothers", she has one mother and one father. The fact the mother is in a make believe homophile relationship does not change reality.

Poor child, the Regnerus Study showed that children in lesbo households are 12x more likely to be molested than normal children.

-from crossbro
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on March 30, 2014, 03:48:26 PM
Quote from: Sigismund
I am not sure I oppose the baptism of the child.  Confirming the two women is clearly not a Catholic act, and is actually sacrilege.  


Oh of course, no one could be against a baptism.

But in this case I think the daughter should be told to wait until she can understand that the Church says her mother is involved in a perpetual homophile relationship and her mother is cut off from God.

Once the daughter understands that she should sign a declaration stating she understands that homophile relationships are perpetually sin full and evil.

Once that is cleared up she should be baptized while her mother and her partner in evil wait outside on the sidewalk.

-from crossbro
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Nadir on March 30, 2014, 04:38:34 PM
Quote from: Memorare
Luckily I'm surrounded by good catholic friends who follow the church teachings, but are really oblivious of such things as this going on...


Yes there are good Catholics who seem not to notice these things.
I have one who has a terrible fear of being "uncharitable".
Others are fearful to admit these things to themselves to avoid having to go a little deeper and maybe move out of the NO (or SSPX) setting. they want to feel "safe".
Others may not even be able to discern because of long exposure to NO "teaching" or lack thereof.

Quote
Some days though make me wonder if I should have just stayed with the southern baptist church that I grew up in...you won't see a lesbain couple there trying to become members...etc. I've been on a long long journey to the church and now that I'm here... Sigh. I don't know what to do. My husband isn't catholic I'm trying to raise my children catholic and it's just hard. All the way around it's hard!


Never look back, Memorare. Have courage! God gave you the grace of seeing the Truth, and He will supply what you need. Just hang in there, pray and do His Will. This is a trial for you, it is obvious but God will not test you beyond your capability, although it may seem to you that He does. All this is for a purpose, of which we are not privy. You are one of the chosen, and your work is to be faithful to the call and eventually to bring your husband and children to eternal salvation

You are in my prayers and I am sure others here are praying for you.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Memorare on March 30, 2014, 08:28:40 PM
Thank you nadir, for your kind words but mostly for your prayers. I can sure use them! God bless you!
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Sigismund on March 30, 2014, 09:30:10 PM
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Sigismund
I am not sure I oppose the baptism of the child.  Confirming the two women is clearly not a Catholic act, and is actually sacrilege.  


Unrepentant public sinners who have no intention to raise the child in the Faith have always been denied baptism for their child.  It is a sad reality, as no one likes to see a child deprived of Baptism.

These woman are committed to their public sins and even consider themselves married.  This case is a no brainer.  


I see that too.  That is why I said I am not sure.  
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Sigismund on March 30, 2014, 09:31:17 PM
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Sigismund
I am not sure I oppose the baptism of the child.  Confirming the two women is clearly not a Catholic act, and is actually sacrilege.  


Unrepentant public sinners who have no intention to raise the child in the Faith have always been denied baptism for their child.  It is a sad reality, as no one likes to see a child deprived of Baptism.

These woman are committed to their public sins and even consider themselves married.  This case is a no brainer.  


Even according to Can. 868 §1. For an infant to be baptized licitly:

1/ the parents or at least one of them or the person who legitimately takes their place must consent;

2/ there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion; if such hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be delayed according to the prescripts of particular law after the parents have been advised about the reason.




Okay.  I'm convinced.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on March 30, 2014, 09:35:13 PM
Under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, Holy Mother Church is very solicitous for the welfare of everyone. She knows best and She does not allow baptism of infants in these situations. It would be much worse for a child to be baptized and raised by perverts to reject the true faith than for the child to remain unbaptized.

If later on if when the child is an adult, despite her horrible upbringing, by the grace of God she chooses to be baptized and practice the faith, she can do that. Our Lord knows how to call those who will respond to Him. The Good Shepherd seeks them and showers them with graces.

Those lesbians and those clerics who are involved in this case are not real Catholics. They are “Catholics” in name only, and they are a terrible scandal. A great punishment awaits them all if they do not repent and make amends.

We must pray that these scandals do not shake our faith, but rather open our eyes to the Great Apostasy that is happening, and the fact that the true faith is not to be found in the Novus Ordo “Catholic” Religion.

We must stand firm. Reject the apostasy and heresies. Reject the apostates and heretics, no matter what position they hold in the New Church of Vatican 2, that masquerades as the Catholic Church.

Mary Help of Christians pray for us!
Most Sacred Heart of Jesus Have Mercy on us!
Lord save us, we perish!

Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: crossbro on March 31, 2014, 12:57:43 AM

The Church holds that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is an objective moral disorder because it inclines one to sin.

One has to wonder if this bishop in Argentina was not Francis comma heretic's boyfriend.

The clergy is morally bankrupt.

The credibility is gone.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Tiffany on March 31, 2014, 05:45:01 AM
When a child is born out of wedlock, do the priest require the mother to go to confession and the couple to stop fornicating or living together? Seems like that is pretty common in Europe but it happens here too.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Capt McQuigg on March 31, 2014, 06:27:21 AM
Quote from: Sigismund
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Sigismund
I am not sure I oppose the baptism of the child.  Confirming the two women is clearly not a Catholic act, and is actually sacrilege.  


Unrepentant public sinners who have no intention to raise the child in the Faith have always been denied baptism for their child.  It is a sad reality, as no one likes to see a child deprived of Baptism.

These woman are committed to their public sins and even consider themselves married.  This case is a no brainer.  


I see that too.  That is why I said I am not sure.  


I would like to see the child baptized because of the removal of original sin.  As I see it, this will put the child on the right course.  We have to do all in our power for the benefit of souls, even souls in such a precarious position as this one and permitting the sacraments to the child is an act of hope and mercy.

The lesbians are mockers of God, they will just condemn themselves by their actions but, against the grain, the child should be baptized.

Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on March 31, 2014, 07:43:55 AM
Quote from: Capt McQuigg
Quote from: Sigismund
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Sigismund
I am not sure I oppose the baptism of the child.  Confirming the two women is clearly not a Catholic act, and is actually sacrilege.  


Unrepentant public sinners who have no intention to raise the child in the Faith have always been denied baptism for their child.  It is a sad reality, as no one likes to see a child deprived of Baptism.

These woman are committed to their public sins and even consider themselves married.  This case is a no brainer.  


I see that too.  That is why I said I am not sure.  


I would like to see the child baptized because of the removal of original sin.  As I see it, this will put the child on the right course.  We have to do all in our power for the benefit of souls, even souls in such a precarious position as this one and permitting the sacraments to the child is an act of hope and mercy.

The lesbians are mockers of God, they will just condemn themselves by their actions but, against the grain, the child should be baptized.



The way you see it is not how Holy Mother Church sees it.
The Church is right.
The Church has spoken.
You are wrong.
Simple as that.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: crossbro on March 31, 2014, 09:02:53 AM
Quote from: Capt McQuigg
Quote from: Sigismund
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Sigismund
I am not sure I oppose the baptism of the child.  Confirming the two women is clearly not a Catholic act, and is actually sacrilege.  


Unrepentant public sinners who have no intention to raise the child in the Faith have always been denied baptism for their child.  It is a sad reality, as no one likes to see a child deprived of Baptism.

These woman are committed to their public sins and even consider themselves married.  This case is a no brainer.  


I see that too.  That is why I said I am not sure.  


I would like to see the child baptized because of the removal of original sin.  As I see it, this will put the child on the right course.  We have to do all in our power for the benefit of souls, even souls in such a precarious position as this one and permitting the sacraments to the child is an act of hope and mercy.

The lesbians are mockers of God, they will just condemn themselves by their actions but, against the grain, the child should be baptized.



The entire motive of this baptism is political.

No, the child should not be to baptized if the point is to teach the child she can bend the Church.

This is no act of hope or mercy, did the mother's baptism put her on the right course ? You make this about the child when it should be about God and the Church.

This is an evil relationship that is offensive to God and His people, the scandal the baptism creates far out weighs anything positive that will come out of it.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Memorare on March 31, 2014, 03:28:38 PM
The whole thing is political!

If I read correctly, the president of Argentina is the godparent. There have been other cases, this is not the first. Another case of homo parents where one was changed into a woman ! Whatever they are called, I'm not politically correct enough to give a poop what they are called. Anyway. Disgusting. Previous case "pope francis" was archbishop and allowed it. His actions speak.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: JezusDeKoning on April 08, 2014, 06:10:00 PM
There was matter. Obviously the child was not baptized with Pepsi.

There was form, e.g. (in Spanish) "Yo te bautizo en el Nombre del Padre, del Hijo y del Espíritu Santo, amén"

There was no INTENTION, however. I doubt there will ever be. Does this invalidate, or at least make illicit the sacrament?

I mean, with a heterosɛҳuąƖ couple, it can, by the grace of God, be legitimized. This can't ever happen with a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ "couple", regardless of whatever stupid legal jargon will tell them.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: RomanCatholic1953 on April 08, 2014, 07:19:06 PM
Here is an another link with graphic details. DISGUESTING. NO Church
sinks so low.

http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A568-Lesbians.htm
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on April 08, 2014, 08:51:39 PM
Quote from: Capt McQuigg
Quote from: Sigismund
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Sigismund
I am not sure I oppose the baptism of the child.  Confirming the two women is clearly not a Catholic act, and is actually sacrilege.  


Unrepentant public sinners who have no intention to raise the child in the Faith have always been denied baptism for their child.  It is a sad reality, as no one likes to see a child deprived of Baptism.

These woman are committed to their public sins and even consider themselves married.  This case is a no brainer.  


I see that too.  That is why I said I am not sure.  


I would like to see the child baptized because of the removal of original sin.  As I see it, this will put the child on the right course.  We have to do all in our power for the benefit of souls, even souls in such a precarious position as this one and permitting the sacraments to the child is an act of hope and mercy.

The lesbians are mockers of God, they will just condemn themselves by their actions but, against the grain, the child should be baptized.



What you would like to see and what the Church teaches are two different things.

It would do you alot of good to learn the wisdom of the Catholic Church in these matters, because you are way off base.  
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on April 08, 2014, 08:56:27 PM
Quote from: JezusDeKoning
There was matter. Obviously the child was not baptized with Pepsi.

There was form, e.g. (in Spanish) "Yo te bautizo en el Nombre del Padre, del Hijo y del Espíritu Santo, amén"

There was no INTENTION, however. I doubt there will ever be. Does this invalidate, or at least make illicit the sacrament?

I mean, with a heterosɛҳuąƖ couple, it can, by the grace of God, be legitimized. This can't ever happen with a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ "couple", regardless of whatever stupid legal jargon will tell them.


In very simple terms, they made a horrible situation much much worse.  
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: JezusDeKoning on April 08, 2014, 09:22:34 PM
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: JezusDeKoning
There was matter. Obviously the child was not baptized with Pepsi.

There was form, e.g. (in Spanish) "Yo te bautizo en el Nombre del Padre, del Hijo y del Espíritu Santo, amén"

There was no INTENTION, however. I doubt there will ever be. Does this invalidate, or at least make illicit the sacrament?

I mean, with a heterosɛҳuąƖ couple, it can, by the grace of God, be legitimized. This can't ever happen with a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ "couple", regardless of whatever stupid legal jargon will tell them.


In very simple terms, they made a horrible situation much much worse.  


I realize that there IS scandal behind the act - anything else?
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: poche on April 09, 2014, 03:10:26 AM
This is the archbishop's response to criticism (inquiries) about the controversial baptism of the child of a lesbians who is living in sin with her "partner."
 
Archbishop Carlos Nanez of Cordoba, Argentina, explained that the recent baptism of a baby who is being raised by her biological mother and the woman’s lesbian partner is not an endorsement of their lifestyle.

Rather, he said in statements to CNA, the case “is like that of any other person who asks for baptism.”

“The one that is receiving baptism is the girl. It is her right,” he underscored.

His comments came in response to the baptism of Umma Azul at the Cathedral of Cordoba on April 5. Azul is the biological daughter of Soledad Ortiz, a woman who contracted a civil marriage with her same-sex partner Kartina Villarroel under Argentinean law last year.

Denying media reports that he had met with the lesbian couple and even authorized that they receive the sacrament of Confirmation, Archbishop Nanez said that “they came here without speaking to me and were directed to a parish where they had to fulfill the necessary requirements for preparation for baptism.”

He added that he has spoken about the case with Cardinal Antonio Canizares, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, “so the Holy See is aware of this.”

The archbishop noted that one of the commitments made by the parents and godparents of a child who is baptized is to raise him or her in the faith.

“When it comes to this, I think the people's goodwill is what is at stake,” he said. “Many people come to us to have their children baptized and we vouch for their goodwill, but we do not have the absolute certainty that they are going to respect this, or that their lives are completely consistent with the values of the Gospel.”

“The Church in that matter demonstrates that she is a merciful and wide-reaching mother, in order to open the doors of salvation,” he continued. “Baptism is a right of every human person, and I think that the Holy Father as well, ever since he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires, always advocated for great openness in administering these sacraments.”

Archbishop Nanez warned that media reports on the baptism have been distorted.  

“This is about the baptism of a girl who has the right to receive this sacrament, and as much as possible we strive to ensure that the conditions are met for its correct administration,” he said.

The media is often manipulated,” the archbishop stressed, “and we have to take a critical view. Not everything that the newspapers or the press says is true.”

Addressing a group of Italian priests in August 2006, then-Pope Benedict XVI also defended the baptism of children whose parents may not be entirely adherent to the Church’s beliefs.

He described baptismal preparation as “a missionary commitment that goes beyond the boundaries of people who are already ‘faithful.’”

“Baptism, its preparation and the commitment to giving continuity to the baptismal promises, already puts us in contact with those who are not convinced believers,” he said. “It is not, let us say, a task of preserving Christianity, but rather an encounter with people who may seldom go to church.”

Pope Francis has similarly defended the baptism of children whose parents are not in a valid marriage.

“The child has absolutely no responsibility for the state of his parents' marriage,” he reportedly told Italian magazine 30 Giorni during his time as a cardinal in Argentina in 2009. “And often a baptism can be a new start for the parents as well.”


 http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/argentine-archbishop-defends-baptism-of-child-with-lesbian-parents/

Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on April 09, 2014, 09:06:47 AM
Quote from: poche
This is the archbishop's response to criticism (inquiries) about the controversial baptism of the child of a lesbians who is living in sin with her "partner."
 
Archbishop Carlos Nanez of Cordoba, Argentina, explained that the recent baptism of a baby who is being raised by her biological mother and the woman’s lesbian partner is not an endorsement of their lifestyle.

Rather, he said in statements to CNA, the case “is like that of any other person who asks for baptism.”

“The one that is receiving baptism is the girl. It is her right,” he underscored.

His comments came in response to the baptism of Umma Azul at the Cathedral of Cordoba on April 5. Azul is the biological daughter of Soledad Ortiz, a woman who contracted a civil marriage with her same-sex partner Kartina Villarroel under Argentinean law last year.

Denying media reports that he had met with the lesbian couple and even authorized that they receive the sacrament of Confirmation, Archbishop Nanez said that “they came here without speaking to me and were directed to a parish where they had to fulfill the necessary requirements for preparation for baptism.”

He added that he has spoken about the case with Cardinal Antonio Canizares, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, “so the Holy See is aware of this.”

The archbishop noted that one of the commitments made by the parents and godparents of a child who is baptized is to raise him or her in the faith.

“When it comes to this, I think the people's goodwill is what is at stake,” he said. “Many people come to us to have their children baptized and we vouch for their goodwill, but we do not have the absolute certainty that they are going to respect this, or that their lives are completely consistent with the values of the Gospel.”

“The Church in that matter demonstrates that she is a merciful and wide-reaching mother, in order to open the doors of salvation,” he continued. “Baptism is a right of every human person, and I think that the Holy Father as well, ever since he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires, always advocated for great openness in administering these sacraments.”

Archbishop Nanez warned that media reports on the baptism have been distorted.  

“This is about the baptism of a girl who has the right to receive this sacrament, and as much as possible we strive to ensure that the conditions are met for its correct administration,” he said.

The media is often manipulated,” the archbishop stressed, “and we have to take a critical view. Not everything that the newspapers or the press says is true.”

Addressing a group of Italian priests in August 2006, then-Pope Benedict XVI also defended the baptism of children whose parents may not be entirely adherent to the Church’s beliefs.

He described baptismal preparation as “a missionary commitment that goes beyond the boundaries of people who are already ‘faithful.’”

“Baptism, its preparation and the commitment to giving continuity to the baptismal promises, already puts us in contact with those who are not convinced believers,” he said. “It is not, let us say, a task of preserving Christianity, but rather an encounter with people who may seldom go to church.”

Pope Francis has similarly defended the baptism of children whose parents are not in a valid marriage.

“The child has absolutely no responsibility for the state of his parents' marriage,” he reportedly told Italian magazine 30 Giorni during his time as a cardinal in Argentina in 2009. “And often a baptism can be a new start for the parents as well.”


 http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/argentine-archbishop-defends-baptism-of-child-with-lesbian-parents/



Novus-Archbishop Carlos Nanez condemns himself.

He also condemns the NovusCardinal Antonio Canizares and the unHoly See of Bergoglio/Francis.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on April 09, 2014, 11:30:25 AM
Quote from: poche


the case “is like that of any other person who asks for baptism.”

“The one that is receiving baptism is the girl. It is her right,” he underscored.


Since when can a baby ask for Baptism?
I never thought Baptism was a right of babies?
I always thought of it as a gift of God.
A gift endowed on infants by virtue of their parent's belief and their parents sacrament of Marriage.
Because the parents are vouching for the child, the child is thus Baptized.

Quote from: poche
“This is about the baptism of a girl who has the right to receive this sacrament, and as much as possible we strive to ensure that the conditions are met for its correct administration,” he said.


If they consider it a right, is it not safe to assume that their idea of the Sacrament of Baptism does fall into the NO idea of Baptism as coming into communion with your community (since everybody around you is Catholic, you deserve to be Catholic) vs. a necessity for the washing away of Original Sin and entering into a life of grace?
Thus does their intent match the intent of the Catholic Church or of the Conciliar Church?

Quote from: poche
“Baptism, its preparation and the commitment to giving continuity to the baptismal promises, already puts us in contact with those who are not convinced believers,” he said. “It is not, let us say, a task of preserving Christianity, but rather an encounter with people who may seldom go to church.”


Are they saying that Baptism would be a "safety measure" taken on behalf of the baby?
If they are not convinced believers then what business does anyone have baptizing this child?
Are they hoping that since the child gets baptized that graces will flow upward to the parents, and then what?  
They either:
a)   realize their being "unfairly" treated by not receiving the Sacrament of Marriage and demand it as their "right" so they can raise this child accordingly with the church
b)   realize they are committing the sin of Sodom and then go their separate ways.

When they separate what happens to the child?


Quote from: poche
Pope Francis has similarly defended the baptism of children whose parents are not in a valid marriage.


What is he talking about when he says valid marriage?  
How is one invalidly married and still considered married?
Is he talking about married in civil ceremonies only?
Does this mean then that the Catholic Church now accepts the legitimacy of civil unions?

Quote from: poche
“The child has absolutely no responsibility for the state of his parents' marriage,” he reportedly told Italian magazine 30 Giorni during his time as a cardinal in Argentina in 2009. “And often a baptism can be a new start for the parents as well.”


So basically, the Pope is saying that if there is a remote possibility that the "parents" would be "converted" then we should do everything we can to accommodate them, including their publicly sinful declaration that they do not believe what God teaches when they do not agree with it.

Haven't they then made themselves a God unto themselves where everyone else conforms to their demands?
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on April 09, 2014, 09:24:20 PM
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: poche
This is the archbishop's response to criticism (inquiries) about the controversial baptism of the child of a lesbians who is living in sin with her "partner."
 
Archbishop Carlos Nanez of Cordoba, Argentina, explained that the recent baptism of a baby who is being raised by her biological mother and the woman’s lesbian partner is not an endorsement of their lifestyle.

Rather, he said in statements to CNA, the case “is like that of any other person who asks for baptism.”

“The one that is receiving baptism is the girl. It is her right,” he underscored.

His comments came in response to the baptism of Umma Azul at the Cathedral of Cordoba on April 5. Azul is the biological daughter of Soledad Ortiz, a woman who contracted a civil marriage with her same-sex partner Kartina Villarroel under Argentinean law last year.

Denying media reports that he had met with the lesbian couple and even authorized that they receive the sacrament of Confirmation, Archbishop Nanez said that “they came here without speaking to me and were directed to a parish where they had to fulfill the necessary requirements for preparation for baptism.”

He added that he has spoken about the case with Cardinal Antonio Canizares, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, “so the Holy See is aware of this.”

The archbishop noted that one of the commitments made by the parents and godparents of a child who is baptized is to raise him or her in the faith.

“When it comes to this, I think the people's goodwill is what is at stake,” he said. “Many people come to us to have their children baptized and we vouch for their goodwill, but we do not have the absolute certainty that they are going to respect this, or that their lives are completely consistent with the values of the Gospel.”

“The Church in that matter demonstrates that she is a merciful and wide-reaching mother, in order to open the doors of salvation,” he continued. “Baptism is a right of every human person, and I think that the Holy Father as well, ever since he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires, always advocated for great openness in administering these sacraments.”

Archbishop Nanez warned that media reports on the baptism have been distorted.  

“This is about the baptism of a girl who has the right to receive this sacrament, and as much as possible we strive to ensure that the conditions are met for its correct administration,” he said.

The media is often manipulated,” the archbishop stressed, “and we have to take a critical view. Not everything that the newspapers or the press says is true.”

Addressing a group of Italian priests in August 2006, then-Pope Benedict XVI also defended the baptism of children whose parents may not be entirely adherent to the Church’s beliefs.

He described baptismal preparation as “a missionary commitment that goes beyond the boundaries of people who are already ‘faithful.’”

“Baptism, its preparation and the commitment to giving continuity to the baptismal promises, already puts us in contact with those who are not convinced believers,” he said. “It is not, let us say, a task of preserving Christianity, but rather an encounter with people who may seldom go to church.”

Pope Francis has similarly defended the baptism of children whose parents are not in a valid marriage.

“The child has absolutely no responsibility for the state of his parents' marriage,” he reportedly told Italian magazine 30 Giorni during his time as a cardinal in Argentina in 2009. “And often a baptism can be a new start for the parents as well.”


 http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/argentine-archbishop-defends-baptism-of-child-with-lesbian-parents/



Novus-Archbishop Carlos Nanez condemns himself.

He also condemns the NovusCardinal Antonio Canizares and the unHoly See of Bergoglio/Francis.


They are totally shot: The LESBIANS, THE NOVUS-CLERGYMAN WHO "PREPARED" AND BAPTIZED-(if he managed not invalidate it due to defect of intention, matter or form) THE NOVUS-ARCHBISHOP, THE NOVUS-CARDINAL PREFECT OF THE GANG IN CHARGE OF FALSE WORSHIP AND DISCIPLINE OF INVALID AND ILLICIT SACRAMENTS, AND THE UNHOLY SEE OF APOSTASY.


How can two PRACTICING LESBIANS who are living in an ONGOING MORTALLY SINFUL AND TOTALLY PERVERTED LIFESTYLE possibly raise someone in the Faith???

They can't "fulfill the necessary requirements for preparation for baptism.”
They have no goodwill unless they repent and stop living an UNNATURAL, INHERENTLY PERVERTED LIFESTYLE which the child will be RAISED IN unless they stop.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on April 09, 2014, 10:20:02 PM
MY COMMENTS IN RED...

Quote from: poche
This is the archbishop's response to criticism (inquiries) about the controversial baptism of the child of a lesbians who is living in sin with her "partner."
 
Archbishop Carlos Nanez of Cordoba, Argentina, explained that the recent baptism of a baby who is being raised by her biological mother and the woman’s lesbian partner is not an endorsement of their lifestyle.

He is claiming the child can be raised a Catholic WHILE BEING BROUGHT UP in that PERVERTED lifestyle, so he IS ENDORSING THE LIFESTYLE AS ONE THAT IS CONDUCIVE TO RAISING SOMEONE IN THE FAITH.

Rather, he said in statements to CNA, the case “is like that of any other person who asks for baptism.”

BOLD LIE.

“The one that is receiving baptism is the girl. It is her right,” he underscored.

WRONG.

His comments came in response to the baptism of Umma Azul at the Cathedral of Cordoba on April 5. Azul is the biological daughter of Soledad Ortiz, a woman who contracted a civil marriage with her same-sex partner Kartina Villarroel under Argentinean law last year.

Denying media reports that he had met with the lesbian couple and even authorized that they receive the sacrament of Confirmation, Archbishop Nanez said that “they came here without speaking to me and were directed to a parish where they had to fulfill the necessary requirements for preparation for baptism.”

WHAT REQUIREMENTS?

He added that he has spoken about the case with Cardinal Antonio Canizares, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, “so the Holy See is aware of this.”

 HERETICS AND APOSTATES.

The archbishop noted that one of the commitments made by the parents and godparents of a child who is baptized is to raise him or her in the faith.

INSANITY.

“When it comes to this, I think the people's goodwill is what is at stake,” he said. “

INSANE.

Many people come to us to have their children baptized and we vouch for their goodwill, but we do not have the absolute certainty that they are going to respect this, or that their lives are completely consistent with the values of the Gospel.”

IN THIS CASE THERE IS NO GOODWILL. THERE IS CERTAINTY THAT THE LESBIANS DO NOT RESPECT THE LAWS OF GOD AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. THERE IS CERTAINTY THAT THE LESBIAN LIVES ARE NOT CONSISTENT AT ALL WITH THE VALUES OF THE GOSPEL.

“The Church in that matter demonstrates that she is a merciful and wide-reaching mother, in order to open the doors of salvation,” he continued. “Baptism is a right of every human person, and I think that the Holy Father as well, ever since he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires, always advocated for great openness in administering these sacraments.”

THEIR NEW CREED IS OPENNESS TO ALL THINGS. EXCEPT TRADITION AND REAL CATHOLICISM.

Archbishop Nanez warned that media reports on the baptism have been distorted.  

“This is about the baptism of a girl who has the right to receive this sacrament, and as much as possible we strive to ensure that the conditions are met for its correct administration,” he said.

CLEARLY A LIE.

The media is often manipulated,” the archbishop stressed, “and we have to take a critical view. Not everything that the newspapers or the press says is true.”

Addressing a group of Italian priests in August 2006, then-Pope Benedict XVI also defended the baptism of children whose parents may not be entirely adherent to the Church’s beliefs.

He described baptismal preparation as “a missionary commitment that goes beyond the boundaries of people who are already ‘faithful.’”

“Baptism, its preparation and the commitment to giving continuity to the baptismal promises, already puts us in contact with those who are not convinced believers,” he said. “It is not, let us say, a task of preserving Christianity, but rather an encounter with people who may seldom go to church.”

RATZINGER - ANOTHER TOTAL DISASTER.

Pope Francis has similarly defended the baptism of children whose parents are not in a valid marriage.

OF COURSE HE DID.

“The child has absolutely no responsibility for the state of his parents' marriage,” he reportedly told Italian magazine 30 Giorni during his time as a cardinal in Argentina in 2009. “And often a baptism can be a new start for the parents as well.”

DID ANYONE SAY the child has responsibility for the state of his parents? RED HERRING.

BTW, IN THIS CASE HAVE THE LESBIANS (BOTH ARE NOT PARENTS) MADE A NEW START, SPLIT UP, AND BECOME PRACTICING CATHOLICS WHO ARE CAPABLE OF RAISING A CATHOLIC IN THE FAITH?

 http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/argentine-archbishop-defends-baptism-of-child-with-lesbian-parents/


Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: poche on April 10, 2014, 02:59:19 AM
One of the things that the sister emphasizes to us in the chaechesis is the conversion is for the whole family, not just the child who is preparing for first communion. Some people need more conversion than others.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on April 10, 2014, 08:14:28 AM
Quote from: poche
One of the things that the sister emphasizes to us in the chaechesis is the conversion is for the whole family, not just the child who is preparing for first communion. Some people need more conversion than others.


First Communion is already after Baptism.
Apples & Oranges here poche.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on April 10, 2014, 10:41:21 AM
Quote from: poche
One of the things that the sister emphasizes to us in the chaechesis is the conversion is for the whole family, not just the child who is preparing for first communion. Some people need more conversion than others.


Please be relevant poche, instead of a time-waster.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: poche on April 10, 2014, 11:00:16 PM
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: poche
One of the things that the sister emphasizes to us in the chaechesis is the conversion is for the whole family, not just the child who is preparing for first communion. Some people need more conversion than others.


Please be relevant poche, instead of a time-waster.


I believe this is relevant. The bishop said, “The child has absolutely no responsibility for the state of his parents' marriage,” he reportedly told Italian magazine 30 Giorni during his time as a cardinal in Argentina in 2009. “And often a baptism can be a new start for the parents as well.”

A new start is what these two women need. The catechesis of the child is what could bring this about. Sometimes these changes come incrmentaly and sometimes they come all at once. Listening to children recite the child recite their catechism is a good part of what brought about the conversion of both my grandmothers and maybe if they listen to this child recite her catechism maybe they will have a conversion also.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: crossbro on April 11, 2014, 12:12:23 AM
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: poche
One of the things that the sister emphasizes to us in the chaechesis is the conversion is for the whole family, not just the child who is preparing for first communion. Some people need more conversion than others.


Please be relevant poche, instead of a time-waster.


I believe this is relevant. The bishop said, “The child has absolutely no responsibility for the state of his parents' marriage,” he reportedly told Italian magazine 30 Giorni during his time as a cardinal in Argentina in 2009. “And often a baptism can be a new start for the parents as well.”

A new start is what these two women need. The catechesis of the child is what could bring this about. Sometimes these changes come incrmentaly and sometimes they come all at once. Listening to children recite the child recite their catechism is a good part of what brought about the conversion of both my grandmothers and maybe if they listen to this child recite her catechism maybe they will have a conversion also.


I honestly hope you do not believe what you just posted because if you do I really feel sorry for you.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: poche on April 11, 2014, 12:17:11 AM
Quote from: crossbro
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: poche
One of the things that the sister emphasizes to us in the chaechesis is the conversion is for the whole family, not just the child who is preparing for first communion. Some people need more conversion than others.


Please be relevant poche, instead of a time-waster.


I believe this is relevant. The bishop said, “The child has absolutely no responsibility for the state of his parents' marriage,” he reportedly told Italian magazine 30 Giorni during his time as a cardinal in Argentina in 2009. “And often a baptism can be a new start for the parents as well.”

A new start is what these two women need. The catechesis of the child is what could bring this about. Sometimes these changes come incrmentaly and sometimes they come all at once. Listening to children recite the child recite their catechism is a good part of what brought about the conversion of both my grandmothers and maybe if they listen to this child recite her catechism maybe they will have a conversion also.


I honestly hope you do not believe what you just posted because if you do I really feel sorry for you.

You mean to tell us that you don't think that these two women need a major conversion?  
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on April 11, 2014, 12:33:57 AM
Quote from: poche
Quote from: crossbro
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: poche
One of the things that the sister emphasizes to us in the chaechesis is the conversion is for the whole family, not just the child who is preparing for first communion. Some people need more conversion than others.


Please be relevant poche, instead of a time-waster.


I believe this is relevant. The bishop said, “The child has absolutely no responsibility for the state of his parents' marriage,” he reportedly told Italian magazine 30 Giorni during his time as a cardinal in Argentina in 2009. “And often a baptism can be a new start for the parents as well.”

A new start is what these two women need. The catechesis of the child is what could bring this about. Sometimes these changes come incrmentaly and sometimes they come all at once. Listening to children recite the child recite their catechism is a good part of what brought about the conversion of both my grandmothers and maybe if they listen to this child recite her catechism maybe they will have a conversion also.


I honestly hope you do not believe what you just posted because if you do I really feel sorry for you.

You mean to tell us that you don't think that these two women need a major conversion?  


What I mean to tell you is that these two women already know exactly what the Church teaches and they do not care. They would tell you that to your face right after spitting in it.

Wake up Poche- I know this is argentina we are talking about but these two homos did not just walk out of the jungle.

The point of this is to use their little toy they call a daughter as a pawn.

No, the Church should not respond by being implicit in their sin and spreading scandal.

My bet would be placed on the fact these these homos will burn in hell with that bishop at some time in the future. They can express their appreciation for his weak spine as they are all burning.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: poche on April 11, 2014, 02:43:47 AM
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: poche
Quote from: crossbro
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: poche
One of the things that the sister emphasizes to us in the chaechesis is the conversion is for the whole family, not just the child who is preparing for first communion. Some people need more conversion than others.


Please be relevant poche, instead of a time-waster.


I believe this is relevant. The bishop said, “The child has absolutely no responsibility for the state of his parents' marriage,” he reportedly told Italian magazine 30 Giorni during his time as a cardinal in Argentina in 2009. “And often a baptism can be a new start for the parents as well.”

A new start is what these two women need. The catechesis of the child is what could bring this about. Sometimes these changes come incrmentaly and sometimes they come all at once. Listening to children recite the child recite their catechism is a good part of what brought about the conversion of both my grandmothers and maybe if they listen to this child recite her catechism maybe they will have a conversion also.


I honestly hope you do not believe what you just posted because if you do I really feel sorry for you.

You mean to tell us that you don't think that these two women need a major conversion?  


What I mean to tell you is that these two women already know exactly what the Church teaches and they do not care. They would tell you that to your face right after spitting in it.

Wake up Poche- I know this is argentina we are talking about but these two homos did not just walk out of the jungle.

The point of this is to use their little toy they call a daughter as a pawn.

No, the Church should not respond by being implicit in their sin and spreading scandal.

My bet would be placed on the fact these these homos will burn in hell with that bishop at some time in the future. They can express their appreciation for his weak spine as they are all burning.

If they convert then they won't burn in Hell.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Tiffany on April 11, 2014, 09:17:53 AM
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: poche
One of the things that the sister emphasizes to us in the chaechesis is the conversion is for the whole family, not just the child who is preparing for first communion. Some people need more conversion than others.


Please be relevant poche, instead of a time-waster.


I believe this is relevant. The bishop said, “The child has absolutely no responsibility for the state of his parents' marriage,” he reportedly told Italian magazine 30 Giorni during his time as a cardinal in Argentina in 2009. “And often a baptism can be a new start for the parents as well.”

A new start is what these two women need. The catechesis of the child is what could bring this about. Sometimes these changes come incrmentaly and sometimes they come all at once. Listening to children recite the child recite their catechism is a good part of what brought about the conversion of both my grandmothers and maybe if they listen to this child recite her catechism maybe they will have a conversion also.


Your grandmothers were probably poorly catechized but well meaning women raising their family not in-your-face-sinners promoting perversion with a political media campaign. A new start is what they need that starts with private confession and a public apology.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on April 11, 2014, 01:11:27 PM
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: poche
One of the things that the sister emphasizes to us in the chaechesis is the conversion is for the whole family, not just the child who is preparing for first communion. Some people need more conversion than others.


Please be relevant poche, instead of a time-waster.


I believe this is relevant. The bishop said, “The child has absolutely no responsibility for the state of his parents' marriage,” he reportedly told Italian magazine 30 Giorni during his time as a cardinal in Argentina in 2009. “And often a baptism can be a new start for the parents as well.”

A new start is what these two women need. The catechesis of the child is what could bring this about. Sometimes these changes come incrmentaly and sometimes they come all at once. Listening to children recite the child recite their catechism is a good part of what brought about the conversion of both my grandmothers and maybe if they listen to this child recite her catechism maybe they will have a conversion also.


Just like the devil uses everything he can to make us turn away from God because he hates God, God uses everything at his disposal to call us back to Him, that is God's mercy.

I know NO catholic adults who were very indifferent to their faith but considered themselves Catholic nonetheless.  And guess what?  When they opened and read a real catechism book, the Baltimore Catechism, they found themselves reading until dawn the following day and were driven to follow the faith that they left behind.

Your grandomother's conversion was not because of their grandchild, but at the impetus of.  Because they were not taught the Faith properly or maybe they weren't mindful at the time they were taught, whatever, and deep inside, knowingly or not were seeking the Truth, the Holy Ghost works with them to bring wisdom with grace.

One just has to look with honesty:

1)  These women are educated, in fact one is a police officer, therefore they know they are lesbians.  
It is more charitable to suggest that they know what they are doing vs. they do not.  
Can you honestly say that if the Priest, Bishop, or even the Pope spoke privately, and said "We would love to Baptize your child, but first, you must stop living as married lesbians, go to confession, and live celibate lives before we Baptize this child", they would agree and say, "Yes, Father".  Of course not.
Did the presbyters even try?  
Of course not.  
So they are counting on this innocent baby to do all their work?  
How can you, poche, with all honesty say that is the right course of action?
THAT IS A MOST UNCHARITABLE AND AN UNJUST BURDEN TO PLACE ON THIS CHILD.  
The conversion of their "so called" mothers?  
You have decided to make it nobody's business or duty to guide these women to virtue other than the baby.

2)  They are "married", therefore they are not hand holding partners, they are committing the sin of Sodom, which as stated in the Bible, cries to Heaven with vengeance.  NO ONE IS DENYING THIS FACT, IT IS PUBLIC.

3)  They come to church to have their baby Baptized and they have the Baptism and Confirmation at the Cathedral, not some side chapel.  Is this the same Cathedral where they threw out devout Catholics praying the Rosary in reparation for blasphemies and sacrileges?  Maybe not?  Still a Cathedral, seat of the Bishop.

4)  They have the President of the country as a Godmother and announce this event to all the press.  When was the last time practicing Catholic Parents having their baby Baptized, even NO, even with the President of the country as a Godmother, garner such publicity.  You can bet the President is absolutely thrilled with the publicity this stunt is generating.

5)  Look closely at the photo released to the press of this "loving catholic couple".   A carefully composed photo.  In the background you find a painting of a lesbian couple engaged in a s####l act.  Is this the kind of artwork this child will be gazing at in their house?  I thought they were going to try their best to be catholic, how about artwork depicting Our Lady, Our Lord, any Saint.  None were available except this?  And on their right hand side, the Police uniform conveniently hanging off the chair, announcing she is a police officer.  They are making the statement that they are the law and that Sodomy is the Law, and the painting makes it graphically clear what the act of Sodom is.

Conversion ONLY comes about once one recognizes their sinful ways and changes.

Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Sigismund on April 11, 2014, 08:06:51 PM
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: Capt McQuigg
Quote from: Sigismund
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Sigismund
I am not sure I oppose the baptism of the child.  Confirming the two women is clearly not a Catholic act, and is actually sacrilege.  


Unrepentant public sinners who have no intention to raise the child in the Faith have always been denied baptism for their child.  It is a sad reality, as no one likes to see a child deprived of Baptism.

These woman are committed to their public sins and even consider themselves married.  This case is a no brainer.  


I see that too.  That is why I said I am not sure.  


I would like to see the child baptized because of the removal of original sin.  As I see it, this will put the child on the right course.  We have to do all in our power for the benefit of souls, even souls in such a precarious position as this one and permitting the sacraments to the child is an act of hope and mercy.

The lesbians are mockers of God, they will just condemn themselves by their actions but, against the grain, the child should be baptized.



What you would like to see and what the Church teaches are two different things.

It would do you alot of good to learn the wisdom of the Catholic Church in these matters, because you are way off base.  


Well, teach us, please.  
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on April 11, 2014, 08:10:23 PM
Quote from: poche

I believe this is relevant. The bishop said, “The child has absolutely no responsibility for the state of his parents' marriage,” he reportedly told Italian magazine 30 Giorni during his time as a cardinal in Argentina in 2009. “And often a baptism can be a new start for the parents as well.”

A new start is what these two women need. The catechesis of the child is what could bring this about. Sometimes these changes come incrmentaly and sometimes they come all at once. Listening to children recite the child recite their catechism is a good part of what brought about the conversion of both my grandmothers and maybe if they listen to this child recite her catechism maybe they will have a conversion also.


Poche, you are off the deep end.  You need to do some simple studying of the Roman Catholic faith instead of trying to convince us that your feelings are Catholic Truth.

The poor kid being raised by these hags is not the one responsible for curing them of their perversion.  You are reversing God's Natural Order.  It is the PARENTS, meaning a MAN and WOMAN joined in Holy Matrimony who are responsible for teaching their children the Catholic religion.

Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on April 11, 2014, 08:16:12 PM
Quote from: poche

If they convert then they won't burn in Hell.


That's the problem.  They are being given the goods of the Church without having to convert.  They will encourage others to go to Hell also.  
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on April 11, 2014, 10:21:16 PM
I am not surprised at poche's responses on this thread. I thought that the Church, before the crisis, used to not baptize children who were brought up in mortally sinful circuмstances because they would be taught to live in sin and would most likely lose their souls. But in the Novus Ordo anything goes . . . as long as it leads to damnation . . . be a traditional Catholic and that is taboo, but any kind of sin and that will be lionized.

I forgot to click the button, this post is by Matto.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: poche on April 11, 2014, 11:50:06 PM
Quote from: Tiffany
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: poche
One of the things that the sister emphasizes to us in the chaechesis is the conversion is for the whole family, not just the child who is preparing for first communion. Some people need more conversion than others.


Please be relevant poche, instead of a time-waster.


I believe this is relevant. The bishop said, “The child has absolutely no responsibility for the state of his parents' marriage,” he reportedly told Italian magazine 30 Giorni during his time as a cardinal in Argentina in 2009. “And often a baptism can be a new start for the parents as well.”

A new start is what these two women need. The catechesis of the child is what could bring this about. Sometimes these changes come incrmentaly and sometimes they come all at once. Listening to children recite the child recite their catechism is a good part of what brought about the conversion of both my grandmothers and maybe if they listen to this child recite her catechism maybe they will have a conversion also.


Your grandmothers were probably poorly catechized but well meaning women raising their family not in-your-face-sinners promoting perversion with a political media campaign. A new start is what they need that starts with private confession and a public apology.

My grandmothers were married in the Catholic Church. Before the marriage they promised to bring up any children in the Catholic Faith. They made sure that their children all went to Catholic schools and that they learned the Catholic Faith. Then they converted. They both converted before Vatican II.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on April 12, 2014, 12:24:48 AM
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Tiffany
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: poche
One of the things that the sister emphasizes to us in the chaechesis is the conversion is for the whole family, not just the child who is preparing for first communion. Some people need more conversion than others.


Please be relevant poche, instead of a time-waster.


I believe this is relevant. The bishop said, “The child has absolutely no responsibility for the state of his parents' marriage,” he reportedly told Italian magazine 30 Giorni during his time as a cardinal in Argentina in 2009. “And often a baptism can be a new start for the parents as well.”

A new start is what these two women need. The catechesis of the child is what could bring this about. Sometimes these changes come incrmentaly and sometimes they come all at once. Listening to children recite the child recite their catechism is a good part of what brought about the conversion of both my grandmothers and maybe if they listen to this child recite her catechism maybe they will have a conversion also.


Your grandmothers were probably poorly catechized but well meaning women raising their family not in-your-face-sinners promoting perversion with a political media campaign. A new start is what they need that starts with private confession and a public apology.

My grandmothers were married in the Catholic Church. Before the marriage they promised to bring up any children in the Catholic Faith. They made sure that their children all went to Catholic schools and that they learned the Catholic Faith. Then they converted. They both converted before Vatican II.


Were your Grandmothers practicing LESBIANS and PROUD of it???

Oh, they were not? Oh they had husbands? And the husbands were Catholics?

Gee, is there any difference?

Ah!...they were not breaking the natural law, and living utterly perverted lifestyles. They were not living lifestyles condemned directly by Almighty God, through His direct actions as recorded in Holy Scripture, and also condemned by His Church.

The LESBIANS cannot raise the child as a Catholic. They are not capable. If they were to SPLIT UP, and the MOTHER repented and CONVERTED, then and only then would SHE be capable of raising the child as a Catholic. The child should not have been baptized until and unless this happened. If the other Lesbo repented and converted too, she could remain chaste, or get married to a man and still be friends with her  ex-lesbo partner in crime, but she would have no rights or responsibilities in raising the child.

Poche, clearly you are a liberal-minded fool, but possibly you can get your brain around the truth that one cannot give what one does not have. You do a great job of strengthening the Faith of traditional Catholics though, when we see what soul-destroying insanities that you Novus Ordite types believe.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on April 12, 2014, 12:28:59 AM
Quote from: Sigismund
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: Capt McQuigg
Quote from: Sigismund
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Sigismund
I am not sure I oppose the baptism of the child.  Confirming the two women is clearly not a Catholic act, and is actually sacrilege.  


Unrepentant public sinners who have no intention to raise the child in the Faith have always been denied baptism for their child.  It is a sad reality, as no one likes to see a child deprived of Baptism.

These woman are committed to their public sins and even consider themselves married.  This case is a no brainer.  


I see that too.  That is why I said I am not sure.  


I would like to see the child baptized because of the removal of original sin.  As I see it, this will put the child on the right course.  We have to do all in our power for the benefit of souls, even souls in such a precarious position as this one and permitting the sacraments to the child is an act of hope and mercy.

The lesbians are mockers of God, they will just condemn themselves by their actions but, against the grain, the child should be baptized.



What you would like to see and what the Church teaches are two different things.

It would do you alot of good to learn the wisdom of the Catholic Church in these matters, because you are way off base.  


Well, teach us, please.  


You have already been shown what the Church teaches.
You had earlier argued against it, and then when you were shown the Code of Canon Law, to your credit you said you changed your mind.

Have you forgotten, or do you now reject what the Church teaches in the Code?
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: poche on April 12, 2014, 01:10:21 AM
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: poche

If they convert then they won't burn in Hell.


That's the problem.  They are being given the goods of the Church without having to convert.  They will encourage others to go to Hell also.  

In his explanation, the bishop said that they were sent to the parish where a preparation was being given. That means that they were being told of teh importance of being an example to the child. Tha tis difficult when your lifestyle is a contradiction to what the Catholic church teaches. During the 18th century and the first part of the 19th century, Catholic priests would baptize any child that was brought to them. They even baptized the children of Protestants and pagan indians without even an giving an instruction. Many times I wonder about things, but then I look in the archives and a lot of times things were worse than they are today.
 
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on April 12, 2014, 05:03:33 AM
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: poche

If they convert then they won't burn in Hell.


That's the problem.  They are being given the goods of the Church without having to convert.  They will encourage others to go to Hell also.  

In his explanation, the bishop said that they were sent to the parish where a preparation was being given. That means that they were being told of teh importance of being an example to the child. Tha tis difficult when your lifestyle is a contradiction to what the Catholic church teaches. During the 18th century and the first part of the 19th century, Catholic priests would baptize any child that was brought to them. They even baptized the children of Protestants and pagan indians without even an giving an instruction. Many times I wonder about things, but then I look in the archives and a lot of times things were worse than they are today.
 


Poche, don’t be silly. You don’t know what the lesbians were told by the Novus clerics.

The LESBIANS did not prepare for the baptism in a Catholic way because instead they used it as and OPPORTUNITY for their promotion of LESBIANISM and then took the child back to a practicing LESBIAN HOUSEHOLD.

Look in your archives and see if you find any examples of children being baptized and then knowingly handed back to two open LESBIANS.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on April 12, 2014, 06:19:56 AM
Quote from: jman123
These are the fruits of Jorge Mario Bergoglio's papacy.  Horrible.


Cordo_ba

córdoba  (ˈkɔːdəbə)
 (Westminster "ORDER, order" - Mason's GAvel crash on table)
— n
   the standard monetary unit of Nicaragua, divided into 100 centavos
 
[named in honour of Francisco Fernández de Córdoba]

Quote
Dangers and Evils of the Worship.

The noxious elements in such Ba('al)-Worship were not simply the degradation of Yhwh and the enthronement in his place of a baseless superstition. The chief evil arose from the fact that the Ba'als were more than mere religious fantasies.

They were made the symbols of the reproductive powers of nature, and thus their worship ministered to sɛҳuąƖ indulgences, which it at the same time legalized and encouraged.

Further, there was placed side by side with the Ba'al a corresponding female symbol, the Ashtoreth (Babyl. "Ashtar") and the relation between the two deities was set forth as the example and the motive of unbridled sensuality.

The evil became all the worse when in the popular view Yhwh himself was regarded as one of the Ba'als and the chief of them (Hosea ii. 16). It was in northern Israel, where agriculture was more followed than in the southern kingdom, that Ba'al-Worship was most insidious and virulent.


"unbridled
 sensuality. "
to remove all controls or restraints from
unrestrained indulgence in sensual pleasures/lewdness
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on April 12, 2014, 06:24:48 AM
Quote from: poche
Quote from: crossbro
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: poche
One of the things that the sister emphasizes to us in the chaechesis is the conversion is for the whole family, not just the child who is preparing for first communion. Some people need more conversion than others.


Please be relevant poche, instead of a time-waster.


I believe this is relevant. The bishop said, “The child has absolutely no responsibility for the state of his parents' marriage,” he reportedly told Italian magazine 30 Giorni during his time as a cardinal in Argentina in 2009. “And often a baptism can be a new start for the parents as well.”

A new start is what these two women need. The catechesis of the child is what could bring this about. Sometimes these changes come incrmentaly and sometimes they come all at once. Listening to children recite the child recite their catechism is a good part of what brought about the conversion of both my grandmothers and maybe if they listen to this child recite her catechism maybe they will have a conversion also.


I honestly hope you do not believe what you just posted because if you do I really feel sorry for you.

You mean to tell us that you don't think that these two women need a major conversion?  


Poche, don't purposefully act like an idiot; it is hard enough putting up with you when you do it without trying.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on April 12, 2014, 09:45:48 AM
Quote from: RomanCatholic1953
Here is an another link with graphic details. DISGUESTING. NO Church
sinks so low.

http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A568-Lesbians.htm


Two lesbians proudly kissing each each in the Cathedral, after the baptism.

A pox on all those who allowed and encouraged this scandalous spectacle.

The apostates have control of the buildings.

We outside are the true Catholics.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: JezusDeKoning on April 12, 2014, 12:26:17 PM
People living in unrepentant sin do not have the right to have their children baptized. Poche, you should know that.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Mama ChaCha on April 12, 2014, 03:46:30 PM
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Sigismund
I am not sure I oppose the baptism of the child.  Confirming the two women is clearly not a Catholic act, and is actually sacrilege.  


Unrepentant public sinners who have no intention to raise the child in the Faith have always been denied baptism for their child.  It is a sad reality, as no one likes to see a child deprived of Baptism.

These woman are committed to their public sins and even consider themselves married.  This case is a no brainer.  


Why baptize a child and make them the enemy of satan, but refuse to give them the tools and weapons they'll need to fend off the devil? Baptizing a child that you know won't be a catholic is setting them up for failure against sin and damnation. At least if the child is not baptized, they qualify for limbo and can be saved from hell by virtue of that.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on April 12, 2014, 09:44:56 PM
Quote from: Mama ChaCha
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Sigismund
I am not sure I oppose the baptism of the child.  Confirming the two women is clearly not a Catholic act, and is actually sacrilege.  


Unrepentant public sinners who have no intention to raise the child in the Faith have always been denied baptism for their child.  It is a sad reality, as no one likes to see a child deprived of Baptism.

These woman are committed to their public sins and even consider themselves married.  This case is a no brainer.  


Why baptize a child and make them the enemy of satan, but refuse to give them the tools and weapons they'll need to fend off the devil? Baptizing a child that you know won't be a catholic is setting them up for failure against sin and damnation. At least if the child is not baptized, they qualify for limbo and can be saved from hell by virtue of that.


That's right Mama.

The Church is a wise mother; her laws are full of wisdom.

Poche is a fool; his posts are full of foolishness.

It is obvious which one is correct.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on April 13, 2014, 01:22:54 AM
Lesbian couple says baby’s baptism a sign Catholic views changing, want gαy ‘marriage’ blessings
BY GUALBERTO GARCIA JONES, J.D.
Tue Apr 08, 2014 12:44 EST


CORDOBA, Argentina, April 8, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Fears that a public Catholic baptism ceremony for an Argentinean lesbian couple’s child would amount to little more than a media stunt to promote the Church's acceptance of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity appear to have been borne out Saturday at the Archdiocese of Cordoba’s cathedral.

After the celebration of the sacrament, the couple, Karina Villarroel and Soledad Ortiz, kissed while posing for photos with the child, Umma Azul, at the front of the Church.


Villarroel, the non-biological “mother,” told local press the Catholic Church’s decision to grant the baptism was important “because it signifies that there is a real social change and acceptance" following the passage of the country's "marriage equality" law.  

The final step, she said, would be “to be able to have the church consecrate their (gαy) marriage, as right now it is only a civil marriage.”

Villarroel also explained that their decision to have Argentinean President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner as godmother was “a way of thanking her and ex-President Nestor Kirchner for the law which granted us our rights.” Kirchner, who was not present at the ceremony, was instrumental in the passage of same-sex “marriage” in 2010.

The world’s media has jumped on the story. A Google News search returns nearly one thousand news stories on the subject in just the last days, and that is likely to continue to grow as Villarroel and Ortiz have announced a national tour with the baby, including a trip to the capital, Buenos Aires, to participate in numerous television programs and to meet with the president.

According to local church sources this baptism "would have been much more difficult if Jorge Bergoglio were not the Pope."

In September of 2012, Bergoglio, then archbishop of Buenos Aires, ordered all priests to administer the sacrament of baptism to all infants, be they children of single mothers or other out of wedlock situations.  Archbishop Bergoglio warned priests against being hypocritical in the administration of the sacraments and driving people away from salvation.

Cordoba Archbishop Carlos Nanez has defended the baptism, saying it was not intended to support the lesbian couple’s ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, but rather is a “right” of the child.

He denied reports that he had personally approved the baptism. “They came here without speaking to me and were directed to a parish where they had to fulfill the necessary requirements for preparation for baptism,” he told ACI Press.


He added that he had “already spoken with and explained the case to Cardinal Antonio Cañizares, Prefect of the Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments, therefore this is already known to the Holy See.”

Regarding President de Kirchner’s role as godmother, Archbishop Nanez said he had given specific instructions to Father Carlos Varas, the priest administering the sacrament, “to assure that at least one of the godparents is committed to guaranteeing the Christian education of the child.”

According to Varas, “We always baptize and we can never deny baptism to anyone.”

But critics of the archdiocese’s decision to proceed with the baptism have pointed to the Church’s Code of Canon Law, which says that for an infant to be baptized in the Catholic Church “there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion.”

“If such hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be delayed according to the prescripts of particular law after the parents have been advised about the reason,” canon 868 §1 adds.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches the importance of the gift of the sacrament of Baptism for infants and warns “the Church and the parents” against “deny(ing) a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God."

The Catechism also clearly states, however, that “for the grace of Baptism to unfold, the parents' help is important. So too is the role of the godfather and godmother, who must be firm believers, able and ready to help the newly baptized - child or adult on the road of Christian life.”

Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: JezusDeKoning on April 13, 2014, 06:55:40 AM
If this cardinal even thinks of having the sodomite "marriage" "consecrated in the Church", so help me, I'm starting a petition to get him defrocked and excommunicated by the Vatican. Unacceptable in every way.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on April 13, 2014, 07:28:56 AM
Quote from: JezusDeKoning
If this cardinal even thinks of having the sodomite "marriage" "consecrated in the Church", so help me, I'm starting a petition to get him defrocked and excommunicated by the Vatican. Unacceptable in every way.


As if the Vatican Apostates would care.

Petition the Devil, he will help you just as much as the apostates currently in control of the Vatican will.

Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on April 14, 2014, 08:04:00 AM
Typical poche. He spouts off then slips away quietly without admitting he was wrong.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on April 15, 2014, 09:41:38 AM
Quote from: RomanCatholic1953
Here is an another link with graphic details. DISGUESTING. NO Church
sinks so low.

http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A568-Lesbians.htm



Wow those pictures show two proud lesbians, bold as can be!
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on April 15, 2014, 11:58:19 AM
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: RomanCatholic1953
Here is an another link with graphic details. DISGUESTING. NO Church
sinks so low.

http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A568-Lesbians.htm



Wow those pictures show two proud lesbians, bold as can be!


The probability of domestic violence is very high.  Once the demonic glow of a church-y ceremony fades--and it will--the problems will begin in earnest.  That Church has been desecrated.  The devils will make these people pay for what they've done, sooner or later.  It's only a temporary, shallow victory for their cause.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on April 15, 2014, 07:42:19 PM
Even if the lesbians do not beat up on each other or the girl physically, they will beat up the girl spiritually.

The very presence of them living their sick perverted lifestyle, as the poor girl is raised in the same house will be a spiritually oppressive and deadening upbringing.

The poor girl, having to witness day in day out, all day and night,  her perverted lesbo mother and the other lesbo continually doing lesbo things.

Being raised from a baby in their continual daily example of lesbo actions and attitudes will be truly soul-destroying for her.

The lesbians can't raise the girl as Catholic. Impossible.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: JezusDeKoning on April 16, 2014, 04:28:47 PM
A Protestant family could raise this child Catholic better than the fαɢɢօts, because at the very least, there is an ordered, normal relationship being witnessed.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on April 16, 2014, 11:26:13 PM
Quote from: JezusDeKoning
A Protestant family could raise this child Catholic better than the fαɢɢօts, because at the very least, there is an ordered, normal relationship being witnessed.


You are right.

A Protestant family with a Mom and Dad who are not stinking perverts that break the natural law and mock God daily, would be unquantifiably better.

A pox on The Newchurch clery and heirarchy who allowed and promoted this blasphemous outrage.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: poche on April 16, 2014, 11:41:41 PM
Quote from: Mama ChaCha
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Sigismund
I am not sure I oppose the baptism of the child.  Confirming the two women is clearly not a Catholic act, and is actually sacrilege.  


Unrepentant public sinners who have no intention to raise the child in the Faith have always been denied baptism for their child.  It is a sad reality, as no one likes to see a child deprived of Baptism.

These woman are committed to their public sins and even consider themselves married.  This case is a no brainer.  


Why baptize a child and make them the enemy of satan, but refuse to give them the tools and weapons they'll need to fend off the devil? Baptizing a child that you know won't be a catholic is setting them up for failure against sin and damnation. At least if the child is not baptized, they qualify for limbo and can be saved from hell by virtue of that.

Actually it was very common in the 18th and the early part of the 19th century here in what was to become the United States for priests to baptize the children of Protestants with no guarantee that they would be brought up in the Catholic Faith. It was also very common for priests to baptize the children of Indians whose parents were not even Christian with no guarantee that the children would be brought up as Catholics.  
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on April 17, 2014, 03:11:45 AM
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Mama ChaCha
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Sigismund
I am not sure I oppose the baptism of the child.  Confirming the two women is clearly not a Catholic act, and is actually sacrilege.  


Unrepentant public sinners who have no intention to raise the child in the Faith have always been denied baptism for their child.  It is a sad reality, as no one likes to see a child deprived of Baptism.

These woman are committed to their public sins and even consider themselves married.  This case is a no brainer.  


Why baptize a child and make them the enemy of satan, but refuse to give them the tools and weapons they'll need to fend off the devil? Baptizing a child that you know won't be a catholic is setting them up for failure against sin and damnation. At least if the child is not baptized, they qualify for limbo and can be saved from hell by virtue of that.

Actually it was very common in the 18th and the early part of the 19th century here in what was to become the United States for priests to baptize the children of Protestants with no guarantee that they would be brought up in the Catholic Faith. It was also very common for priests to baptize the children of Indians whose parents were not even Christian with no guarantee that the children would be brought up as Catholics.  



Gee, you are a fool pochee.

There is no comparison to this case and you know it.

Show us just one example where a priest back then baptized a child and gave it to TWO LESBIANS to raise in their perverted household.

You can’t.

Poche, you are a disgrace to the name Catholic, for defending this blasphemous fiasco.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: poche on April 17, 2014, 03:16:37 AM
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Mama ChaCha
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Sigismund
I am not sure I oppose the baptism of the child.  Confirming the two women is clearly not a Catholic act, and is actually sacrilege.  


Unrepentant public sinners who have no intention to raise the child in the Faith have always been denied baptism for their child.  It is a sad reality, as no one likes to see a child deprived of Baptism.

These woman are committed to their public sins and even consider themselves married.  This case is a no brainer.  


Why baptize a child and make them the enemy of satan, but refuse to give them the tools and weapons they'll need to fend off the devil? Baptizing a child that you know won't be a catholic is setting them up for failure against sin and damnation. At least if the child is not baptized, they qualify for limbo and can be saved from hell by virtue of that.

Actually it was very common in the 18th and the early part of the 19th century here in what was to become the United States for priests to baptize the children of Protestants with no guarantee that they would be brought up in the Catholic Faith. It was also very common for priests to baptize the children of Indians whose parents were not even Christian with no guarantee that the children would be brought up as Catholics.  



Gee, you are a fool pochee.

There is no comparison to this case and you know it.

Show us just one example where a priest back then baptized a child and gave it to TWO LESBIANS to raise in their perverted household.

You can’t.

Poche, you are a disgrace to the name Catholic, for defending this blasphemous fiasco.

There were instances where priests baptized children and babies and gave them back to their parents who were not Christians and were 0very likely to raise them as pagans.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on April 17, 2014, 03:24:07 AM
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Mama ChaCha
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Sigismund
I am not sure I oppose the baptism of the child.  Confirming the two women is clearly not a Catholic act, and is actually sacrilege.  


Unrepentant public sinners who have no intention to raise the child in the Faith have always been denied baptism for their child.  It is a sad reality, as no one likes to see a child deprived of Baptism.

These woman are committed to their public sins and even consider themselves married.  This case is a no brainer.  


Why baptize a child and make them the enemy of satan, but refuse to give them the tools and weapons they'll need to fend off the devil? Baptizing a child that you know won't be a catholic is setting them up for failure against sin and damnation. At least if the child is not baptized, they qualify for limbo and can be saved from hell by virtue of that.

Actually it was very common in the 18th and the early part of the 19th century here in what was to become the United States for priests to baptize the children of Protestants with no guarantee that they would be brought up in the Catholic Faith. It was also very common for priests to baptize the children of Indians whose parents were not even Christian with no guarantee that the children would be brought up as Catholics.  



Gee, you are a fool pochee.

There is no comparison to this case and you know it.

Show us just one example where a priest back then baptized a child and gave it to TWO LESBIANS to raise in their perverted household.

You can’t.

Poche, you are a disgrace to the name Catholic, for defending this blasphemous fiasco.

There were instances where priests baptized children and babies and gave them back to their parents who were not Christians and were 0very likely to raise them as pagans.


You are a obstinate fool pochee.

There is no comparison to this case and you know it.

Show us just one example where a priest back then baptized a child and gave it to TWO LESBIANS to raise in their perverted household.

You can’t.

Poche, you are a disgrace to the name Catholic, for defending this blasphemous fiasco.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on April 17, 2014, 03:25:21 AM

From Poche, Defender of Blasphemy, deliver us O Lord.

From Poche, Defender of Scandal, deliver us O Lord.

From Poche, Defender of Heretics, deliver us O Lord.

From Poche, Defender of Apostates, deliver us O Lord.

From Poche, Defender of Lesbians, deliver us O Lord.


Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: poche on April 17, 2014, 03:39:37 AM
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Mama ChaCha
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Sigismund
I am not sure I oppose the baptism of the child.  Confirming the two women is clearly not a Catholic act, and is actually sacrilege.  


Unrepentant public sinners who have no intention to raise the child in the Faith have always been denied baptism for their child.  It is a sad reality, as no one likes to see a child deprived of Baptism.

These woman are committed to their public sins and even consider themselves married.  This case is a no brainer.  


Why baptize a child and make them the enemy of satan, but refuse to give them the tools and weapons they'll need to fend off the devil? Baptizing a child that you know won't be a catholic is setting them up for failure against sin and damnation. At least if the child is not baptized, they qualify for limbo and can be saved from hell by virtue of that.

Actually it was very common in the 18th and the early part of the 19th century here in what was to become the United States for priests to baptize the children of Protestants with no guarantee that they would be brought up in the Catholic Faith. It was also very common for priests to baptize the children of Indians whose parents were not even Christian with no guarantee that the children would be brought up as Catholics.  



Gee, you are a fool pochee.

There is no comparison to this case and you know it.

Show us just one example where a priest back then baptized a child and gave it to TWO LESBIANS to raise in their perverted household.

You can’t.

Poche, you are a disgrace to the name Catholic, for defending this blasphemous fiasco.

There were many instances when the priest would baptize children and infants and hand it back to non Catholic Protestant and Pagan Indian parents.
I wonder if the bishop realized how much this baptism would become an "agenda baptism" that would be exploited in this way? There is a point of Canon Law to consider;

 
Can.  867 §1. Parents are obliged to take care that infants are baptized in the first few weeks; as soon as possible after the birth or even before it, they are to go to the pastor to request the sacrament for their child and to be prepared properly for it.

§2. An infant in danger of death is to be baptized without delay.

Can.  868 §1. For an infant to be baptized licitly:

1/ the parents or at least one of them or the person who legitimately takes their place must consent;

2/ there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion; if such hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be delayed according to the prescripts of particular law after the parents have been advised about the reason.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2X.HTM
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on April 17, 2014, 04:03:44 AM
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Mama ChaCha
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Sigismund
I am not sure I oppose the baptism of the child.  Confirming the two women is clearly not a Catholic act, and is actually sacrilege.  


Unrepentant public sinners who have no intention to raise the child in the Faith have always been denied baptism for their child.  It is a sad reality, as no one likes to see a child deprived of Baptism.

These woman are committed to their public sins and even consider themselves married.  This case is a no brainer.  


Why baptize a child and make them the enemy of satan, but refuse to give them the tools and weapons they'll need to fend off the devil? Baptizing a child that you know won't be a catholic is setting them up for failure against sin and damnation. At least if the child is not baptized, they qualify for limbo and can be saved from hell by virtue of that.

Actually it was very common in the 18th and the early part of the 19th century here in what was to become the United States for priests to baptize the children of Protestants with no guarantee that they would be brought up in the Catholic Faith. It was also very common for priests to baptize the children of Indians whose parents were not even Christian with no guarantee that the children would be brought up as Catholics.  



Gee, you are a fool pochee.

There is no comparison to this case and you know it.

Show us just one example where a priest back then baptized a child and gave it to TWO LESBIANS to raise in their perverted household.

You can’t.

Poche, you are a disgrace to the name Catholic, for defending this blasphemous fiasco.

There were many instances when the priest would baptize children and infants and hand it back to non Catholic Protestant and Pagan Indian parents.
I wonder if the bishop realized how much this baptism would become an "agenda baptism" that would be exploited in this way? There is a point of Canon Law to consider;

 
Can.  867 §1. Parents are obliged to take care that infants are baptized in the first few weeks; as soon as possible after the birth or even before it, they are to go to the pastor to request the sacrament for their child and to be prepared properly for it.

§2. An infant in danger of death is to be baptized without delay.

Can.  868 §1. For an infant to be baptized licitly:

1/ the parents or at least one of them or the person who legitimately takes their place must consent;

2/ there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion; if such hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be delayed according to the prescripts of particular law after the parents have been advised about the reason.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2X.HTM


I fixed it for you, O Blind Poche.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on April 17, 2014, 04:06:21 AM
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Mama ChaCha
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Sigismund
I am not sure I oppose the baptism of the child.  Confirming the two women is clearly not a Catholic act, and is actually sacrilege.  


Unrepentant public sinners who have no intention to raise the child in the Faith have always been denied baptism for their child.  It is a sad reality, as no one likes to see a child deprived of Baptism.

These woman are committed to their public sins and even consider themselves married.  This case is a no brainer.  


Why baptize a child and make them the enemy of satan, but refuse to give them the tools and weapons they'll need to fend off the devil? Baptizing a child that you know won't be a catholic is setting them up for failure against sin and damnation. At least if the child is not baptized, they qualify for limbo and can be saved from hell by virtue of that.

Actually it was very common in the 18th and the early part of the 19th century here in what was to become the United States for priests to baptize the children of Protestants with no guarantee that they would be brought up in the Catholic Faith. It was also very common for priests to baptize the children of Indians whose parents were not even Christian with no guarantee that the children would be brought up as Catholics.  



Gee, you are a fool pochee.

There is no comparison to this case and you know it.

Show us just one example where a priest back then baptized a child and gave it to TWO LESBIANS to raise in their perverted household.

You can’t.

Poche, you are a disgrace to the name Catholic, for defending this blasphemous fiasco.

There were many instances when the priest would baptize children and infants and hand it back to non Catholic Protestant and Pagan Indian parents.
I wonder if the bishop realized how much this baptism would become an "agenda baptism" that would be exploited in this way? There is a point of Canon Law to consider;

 
Can.  867 §1. Parents are obliged to take care that infants are baptized in the first few weeks; as soon as possible after the birth or even before it, they are to go to the pastor to request the sacrament for their child and to be prepared properly for it.

§2. An infant in danger of death is to be baptized without delay.

Can.  868 §1. For an infant to be baptized licitly:

1/ the parents or at least one of them or the person who legitimately takes their place must consent;

2/ there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion; if such hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be delayed according to the prescripts of particular law after the parents have been advised about the reason.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2X.HTM


Show us just one example where a priest back then baptized a child and gave it to TWO LESBIANS to raise in their perverted household.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: JezusDeKoning on April 17, 2014, 04:49:17 AM
But what about when there's no hope that the child will be raised in the Catholic faith? Poche, I implore you, stop trying to defend this.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on April 17, 2014, 10:14:57 PM
Quote from: JezusDeKoning
But what about when there's no hope that the child will be raised in the Catholic faith? Poche, I implore you, stop trying to defend this.


Yes, in the is case, obviously, there is no real hope.

Poche, the Catholics here are not fooled by your nonsense.

For your sake though, stop it.

Stop defending the indefensible.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: poche on April 17, 2014, 11:03:56 PM
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: JezusDeKoning
But what about when there's no hope that the child will be raised in the Catholic faith? Poche, I implore you, stop trying to defend this.


Yes, in the is case, obviously, there is no real hope.

Poche, the Catholics here are not fooled by your nonsense.

For your sake though, stop it.

Stop defending the indefensible.

I thought that when I quoted from Canon Law that that was a concession.

 
Can.  867 §1. Parents are obliged to take care that infants are baptized in the first few weeks; as soon as possible after the birth or even before it, they are to go to the pastor to request the sacrament for their child and to be prepared properly for it.

§2. An infant in danger of death is to be baptized without delay.

Can.  868 §1. For an infant to be baptized licitly:

1/ the parents or at least one of them or the person who legitimately takes their place must consent;

2/ there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion; if such hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be delayed according to the prescripts of particular law after the parents have been advised about the reason.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2X.HTM

Maybe we should ask the bishop to explain how he can reconcile the baptism with this passage from Canon Law.
 
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on April 18, 2014, 05:32:46 AM
Quote from: poche


I thought that when I quoted from Canon Law that that was a concession.

 
 


Because of your preface and the quoting of more than point, I thought it was unclear you had conceded

Thank God you now concede that those lesbians should not have been permitted to have the child of one of lesbians get baptized.

The lesbians are also unworthy of receiving the Sacrament of Confirmation. Do you agree?
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: poche on April 20, 2014, 10:47:06 PM
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: poche


I thought that when I quoted from Canon Law that that was a concession.

 
 


Because of your preface and the quoting of more than point, I thought it was unclear you had conceded

Thank God you now concede that those lesbians should not have been permitted to have the child of one of lesbians get baptized.

The lesbians are also unworthy of receiving the Sacrament of Confirmation. Do you agree?

When they truly convert then they will be ready to recieve the sacrament of Confirnmation. Of course they would have to make major changes in how they are living.l
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on April 22, 2014, 08:11:43 PM
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: poche


I thought that when I quoted from Canon Law that that was a concession.

 
 


Because of your preface and the quoting of more than point, I thought it was unclear you had conceded

Thank God you now concede that those lesbians should not have been permitted to have the child of one of lesbians get baptized.

The lesbians are also unworthy of receiving the Sacrament of Confirmation. Do you agree?

When they truly convert then they will be ready to recieve the sacrament of Confirnmation. Of course they would have to make major changes in how they are living.l


Indeed. first they would have to accept the teachings of the Church and become practicing Catholics. instead of being practicing lesbians who want to change the teachings of the Church.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: poche on April 22, 2014, 11:53:31 PM
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: poche


I thought that when I quoted from Canon Law that that was a concession.

 
 


Because of your preface and the quoting of more than point, I thought it was unclear you had conceded

Thank God you now concede that those lesbians should not have been permitted to have the child of one of lesbians get baptized.

The lesbians are also unworthy of receiving the Sacrament of Confirmation. Do you agree?

When they truly convert then they will be ready to recieve the sacrament of Confirnmation. Of course they would have to make major changes in how they are living.l


Indeed. first they would have to accept the teachings of the Church and become practicing Catholics. instead of being practicing lesbians who want to change the teachings of the Church.

That is one of the major changes that they would have to make.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on April 30, 2014, 08:09:40 PM
Most Holy Trinity Seminary Newsletter - April 2014


My dear Catholic people,

I said in my last newsletter that there were other topics to address. One of them is this ever-growing ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ revolution in the Novus Ordo.

Cardinal Dolan’s “Bravo.” Some time back you will recall that a noted athlete made the announce­ment that he was “gαy.”1 When publicly questioned about this, Novus Ordo Cardinal Dolan said, “Bravo.” Dolan’s full statement is the follow­ing: “I would have no sense of judgment on him. God bless ya. I don’t think, look, the same Bible that tells us, that teaches us well about the virtues of chastity and the virtue of fidelity and marriage also tells us not to judge people. So I would say, ‘Bravo.’”

The attraction and the sin. In speaking about homo­sɛҳuąƖity, one must distinguish be­tween the attraction and the sin.

The attraction is an appetite in someone for per­verse sɛҳuąƖ acts, i.e., sɛҳuąƖ acts with persons of the same sex. This attraction can be acquired through a bad habit caused by repeated sins against nature. This is certainly the case in what is known as environmental ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, that is, the inclination to perverse acts in persons who never see members of the opposite sex.

It often occurs in prisons and sometimes occurs in the military. It means, essentially, that due to desperation to find an outlet for sɛҳuąƖ passion, these people turn to persons of their own sex for pleasure, even though they would not do so in a different and normal environ­ment.

This kind of activity and appetite was common among the Greeks and Romans, who regarded sodomy as merely one more way in which to obtain pleasure. The ancient peoples were debauched beyond all imagi­nation.

The attraction to perverse sɛҳuąƖ acts, however, can be found in people for other and as yet mysterious reasons. Some people arrive in their teenage years and discover an attraction to the wrong sex. Many causes have been suggested: (1) broken homes; (2) soft living; (3) domineer­ing mothers coupled with passive and cowering fathers;(4) a feminization of boys through excessive protection by mothers, or a masculinization of girls through excessively aggressive training by the mother or the father. Others say that the cause is genetic, which is not impossible. Repeated sins of an­cestors may cause a propensity toward a certain sin in the children. Indeed, an appetite for evil is what we have all inherited from Adam and Eve.

Whatever be the cause of this appetite, it must be established that the appetite in itself is not a sin. Sin is in the will, and if someone never acts in accordance with an evil appetite, he never commits sin.

The appetite for the same sex is, however, an in­trinsic disorder. For male and female are clearly meant for each other as complements. Male and male do not go together, nor female and female. This principle is everywhere in nature. It exists even in man-made objects: nuts and bolts, plumbing fixtures, elec­trical couplings, even in hooking up audio equipment. It is also obvious in the very structure of reproductive organs in all humans, animals, and even plants that the dis­tinction of male and female is ordered essentially toward reproduction.

If the athlete, therefore, was an­nouncing that he is only attracted to sodomy, but does not in fact sin by sodomy, he is announcing that he has a terrible affliction. This appetite is terrible because it inclines someone to moral perversion and eternal death. Sins of impurity which are contrary to nature are much worse than those which are in accordance with it, since they involve a special malice of the refusal of God’s order. There is a rebel­lion against God in them; a revolt against what is right, natural, and reasonable. On the other hand, sins in accordance with nature involve merely weakness, and are less grave.

To announce that one has this affliction, whatever be its cause, would be analogical to announcing that one had hemophilia, polio, or alcoholism in the physi­cal order, or paranoid schizophrenia, kleptomania, or a suicidal tendency in the psychiatric order, or an appe­tite to commit arson or sarcophagy2 in the order of criminality. Shall we say “bravo” to those who are at­tracted to dead bodies (necrophilia) or to animals (bes­tiality)? These are all disorders of one type or other.

Cardinal Dolan’s bravo in this case is sick, sinful, and even cruel. What person in his right mind would congratulate someone who announced that he had an intrinsic sɛҳuąƖ disorder that inclined him to eternal death?

If the athlete, on the other hand, is announcing not merely an inclination to perversion, but as well the practice of perverted acts — which is usually the case in these announcements — then Cardinal Dolan’s bravo is nothing short of the approval of sins of per­version.

Furthermore, Cardinal Dolan’s citing of the gos­pel text that we should not judge is a gross misinterpretation of Our Lord’s words. All commentaries ap­ply His words to rash judgement, that is, the condem­nation of someone, either in thought or word, without sufficient evidence. If we take it to mean that we can never judge someone’s activity as sinful, then it makes the gospel absurd. It would mean that people sitting on juries should not judge criminals. It would mean that it would be wrong to incarcerate people, since “we should not judge.” Shall we refrain from judging Hitler’s activity or Stalin’s, saying “who am I to judge?”

Putting a new face on an old per­version. There is a very strong move­ment to exempt the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ ten­dency from the realm of disorder. The reason is multiple. The first is the modern intellectual disease of subjec­tivism, in which nature and essence are denied, as if nothing has an objective nature which demands, in turn, activity in accordance with nature. The modern mind is poisoned with the idea that reality is what you make it, that the mind is the source of reality, and that it has no objective, unchanging order to which it must submit. Consequently, there is no natural law. The second reason is hedonism, which holds that whatever is pleasurable is necessarily good, regardless of the acts necessary, whether good or bad, which one uses in order to obtain the pleasure. Man exists for pleasure, according to the hedonist. He has a short life to live before he ceases to exist. There is no afterlife for the hedonist. Consequently the hedonist says that it would be immoral to deny to the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs the pleasure which they obtain from sodomitic acts, since man’s ultimate purpose in life is to obtain pleasure. The third reason is pluralism, by which all systems of thought, no matter how contradictory they should be, can have a value for those who sincerely adhere to these systems. This is the entire basis for ecuмenism. It is “truth without teeth,” that is, truth which does not exclude its contradictory opposite, namely falsehood. It would be something like light which does not ex­clude darkness. Imagine how insane you would have to be to say, while standing in the noonday sun, that you were also standing in a total absence of light. Yet it is this insanity which rules the world, and makes it so sick, and makes it so depressing to live in.

Vatican II embraced pluralism as its fundamental principle, its fundamental conformity to the modern world. It abandoned the very notion of objective truth and enshrined human conscience as the ultimate source of truth and reality. In so doing it poisoned everything in the Catholic Church: (1) sacred and changeless doctrines both dogmatic and moral; (2) the sacred liturgy (3) holy laws and disciplines, and (4) piety which flowed directly from the unchanging doctrine. In the same manner that the eye is attracted to light, so the human mind is naturally attracted to definition and form, like that of a simple triangle, and is repulsed by fuzziness, obscurity, and formlessness. The beauty of the Catholic Church, and the reason for its endless success in drawing souls to itself, is that it is the change­less bulwark of changeless doctrines. In being this, it is a very picture of God and the heavenly court itself. This it always was despite any of the sins of its popes, bishops, or priests. It never lost this supernatural luster, and always attracted to itself souls interested in the truth. Because of the constancy and perpetuity of this light, like that of the sun itself, the Church always had a never-fading ability to renew itself and find new vigor, despite the most appalling setbacks and the most devas­tating persecutions.

This everlasting and constant light can still be seen, but only in the little pockets of traditional Catholics around the world. They refuse the pluralism of Vatican II. It is for this reason that they have the ability to attract, for the human mind loves consis­tency, clarity, lucidity and continuity, and demands that these qualities be present in religious truths, since they are unchanging dogmas which describe an un­changing God.

The bulk of once Catholic institutions, however, have been gassed by the pluralism of Vatican II, and are populated by persons who think in terms that are undefined, confused, vague, nebulous, and unintelligible.

The real reason for Dolan’s “bravo.” Dolan has enough Catholic training in his past to know that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ acts are very serious mortal sins, and are intrinsically evil. But Dolan is running for pope. It is obvious to everyone. He has sensed that the new trend in the Vatican and among the bishops is to alter the pastoral practice of the Church in such a way as to deny traditional moral doctrines in the practical order, while at the same time changing nothing in the theo­retical order. It is nothing less than to institutionalize hypocritical pharisaism. It is to say one thing, and to do another. Like whited sepulchers, they look respect­able in their catechisms and official docuмents. In pas­toral practice, they are filthy. Our Lord said to the Phari­sees: “Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within are full of dead men’s bones, and of all filthiness.” (Matth. XXIII: 27)

The Novus Ordo has been practicing this hypocrisy for a long time, ever since Paul VI condemned the use of the birth control pill in 1968. 85% of Catholics today think that it is perfectly all right to take the pill, because they were told by their Novus Ordo clergy that it was all right. They could “use their conscience.”

This dichotomy between doctrine and practice, however, was in secret, since most people do not talk about their birth control habits. Now, however, this same pastoral hypocrisy is being applied to public sins: sins of adultery, and sins of sodomy.

The incident in Cordoba, Argentina. Recently in the cathedral of Cordoba in Argentina, a very eld­erly priest who once had the reputation of being ex­tremely conservative, performed the baptism of a child who “belonged” to two “married” lesbians. So public was this act that the President of Argentina, a leftist and a socialist in favor of every perverse and wicked thing, decided that she wanted to be the “god­mother” of this unfortunate child. And so she was.

All of this was with the smiling approval of Bergoglio. For although he said nothing, the fact that this public act, involving the head of State and in the ca­thedral itself, passed by with his silence, means that he approved of it. It is a general moral principle that silence must be taken as consent if a superior has the responsibility and opportunity to condemn the wrongdoing.

Catholic law and discipline require that the bap­tizing priest have a founded hope that the child will be raised in the Catholic Faith. Otherwise he cannot bap­tize. How can this hope be there when the child will be raised by two “married” perverts who glory in their perversion?

Holding hands with sodomites. On March 21st of this year, Bergoglio was seen holding hands with a Novus Ordo priest, a certain Luigi Ciotti who is a pro-­ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ activist and friend of the recently deceased Fr. Andrea Gallo, who was a public communist, Modernist, and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ activist. He actually called for a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ pope.

Why is Bergoglio holding hands with this pro-­ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ activist? Since when do men hold hands? Do not lovers hold hands? If you saw two men hold­ing hands on the street, would you not consider them to be ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs?

A major development for the Novus Ordo. The new “anything goes” approach to pastoral practice is a major step downward in the general decay which this new religion has brought upon us. It is a new thresh­old for the Novus Ordo, since it is nothing less than the public approval of unnatural sex acts. Nor can they hide behind the whited sepulchers of their cate­chisms and docuмents. People pay attention to action and not theory. Actions speak louder than words. Besides, who reads the windy and obtuse verbiage of those “papal” docuмents, in most cases impossible to understand?
This new — but inevitable — moral collapse of the Novus Ordo is frightening to behold, and one only wonders what the ultimate outcome will be.
In the meantime, the Novus Ordo conservatives still say that nothing has changed, and are still squint­ing to see clothes on their naked emperor, but this time their emperor is holding hands with another man.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Most Rev. Donald J. Sanborn
Rector

1 I put this word in quotation marks, since it was always a derogatory term for these people, but has now become the standard word for those who are inclined to the sin of Sodom, and this by their own choice.

2 The practice of eating human flesh
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: poche on May 29, 2014, 12:36:30 AM
I think I just found a basis in the 1917 Code of Canon Law which would allow for the baptism of this girl. From the Code of Canon Law 1917;

Can 750 §1. Infans infidelium, etiam invitis parentibus, licite baptizatur, cuм in eo versatur vitae discrimine, ut prudenter praevideatur moriturus, antequam usum rationis attingat.
 §2. Extra mortis periculum, dummodo catholicae eius educationi cautum sit, licite baptizatur:
 1º Si parentes vel tutores, aut saltem unus eorum, consentiant;
 2º Si parentes, idest pater, mater, avus, avia, vel tutores desint, aut ius in eum amiserint, vel illud exercere nullo pacto queant.

Can 751. Circa baptismum infantium duorum haereticorum aut schismaticorum, aut duorum catholicorum qui in apostasiam vel haeresim vel schisma prolapsi sint, generatim serventur normae in superiore canone constitutae.

A rough translation says

Canon 750 § 1. An infant can not be trusted, even against their parents, is licitly baptized when he is in a critical situation wherein, in order that it is prudently foreseen die, before the use of reason fails to attain to.
  § 2. Apart from the danger of death, so long as his Catholic education provision has been made, is licitly baptized:
  1 º If the parents or guardians, or at least one of them must consent;
  2 º If the parents, that is, father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, or guardians are not available, nor the right of him they have lost, or that they may be able to exercise in any way.

Canon 751. Concerning the baptism of the infants of the two of heretics or schismatics, or apostasy, or heresy, or schism of two fallen away Catholic who is in the they may be, in general, to observe the norms in the former the canon established as follows.

Apparently if the Catholic upbringing is provided for then the child can be licitly baptized.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on May 29, 2014, 10:05:51 AM
Poche,

Specifically which part do you think justifies the baptism while there is no reasonable hope that two lesbians can raise the girl as a Catholic as they practice lesbianism, and will be raising the girl in that environment in defiance of the Church?
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on May 29, 2014, 10:14:32 AM
poche,

Why are you quoting ("rough translation") from the 1917 Code of Canon Law when you believe it has been superseded?
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: poche on May 29, 2014, 11:06:31 PM
Quote from: Guest
Poche,

Specifically which part do you think justifies the baptism while there is no reasonable hope that two lesbians can raise the girl as a Catholic as they practice lesbianism, and will be raising the girl in that environment in defiance of the Church?

750 #2 which says "so long as his Catholic education provision has been made, is licitly baptized."
This refers to the baptism of the children of heretics. The two lesbians fit into that category.  

Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: poche on May 29, 2014, 11:26:25 PM
Quote from: Guest
poche,

Why are you quoting ("rough translation") from the 1917 Code of Canon Law when you believe it has been superseded?

I am quoting that because when I first heard this story the first thing that came to mind was "What were they thinking over there? Maybe they weren't."
But then it occured to me that there must be more to the story that isn't being told.
Every body here seems to think that it is the very liberal "Novus Ordo" church that is saying let's baptize everyone in an indifferent manner and do this in a way to show support for the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ agenda etc...
However I think they are mistaken in this case. The code of 1983 is written in a way that would actually support the notion of not baptizing the baby than the 1917 code.
The 1983 code says;
 2/ there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion; if such hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be delayed according to the prescripts of particular law after the parents have been advised about the reason.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2X.HTM

The 1983 code implies that we do not baptize the children of heretics ansd apostates. In the parish I belong to they require that the parents be members of the parish before they baptize the children.

The 1917 code is more liberal in this regard than the 1983 code. It actually provides for the baptism of the children of heretics, apostates, pagans, and fallen away Catholics in that it says,  
 
"long as his Catholic education provision has been made, is licitly baptized:"

The bishop in this case told the press that he required the parents of the baby to provide for a godparent who would take an active role in the spiritual upbringing of the child. I don't know what they have actually done in this regard. I don't think their publicly stated choice of Cristina Kirchner qualifies as a good spiritual director. So I think there must be more to the story than has been publicized.  
 

Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on June 02, 2014, 12:16:42 AM
Oh no Poche, you have gone backwards.

Do you really think a  novus ordo godmother who is extremely deficient in faith and morals, and two practicing Lesbians who want to change Catholicism can raise someone as a Catholic?

You are a wishful-thinking novus ordo apologist, who is trying to make an evil thing look good. You are also misapplying the Code of Canon Law.

Maybe you need to read through this thread again.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on June 02, 2014, 01:28:09 AM
Quote from: Guest
poche,

Why are you quoting ("rough translation") from the 1917 Code of Canon Law when you believe it has been superseded?


You are missing the point Poche.

Whatever is the current code of Canon Law is the only law that applies now.

If you believe the 1983 Code is legitimate, then you must believe that it is the law now.

If you reject the 1983 Code, then fine, quote from the 1917 as being the current law.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: poche on June 02, 2014, 02:25:46 AM
Quote from: Guest
Oh no Poche, you have gone backwards.

Do you really think a  novus ordo godmother who is extremely deficient in faith and morals, and two practicing Lesbians who want to change Catholicism can raise someone as a Catholic?

You are a wishful-thinking novus ordo apologist, who is trying to make an evil thing look good. You are also misapplying the Code of Canon Law.

Maybe you need to read through this thread again.

We don't know. It is very likely that the godparent is a practicing Catholic who very likely said something like, "That child is a human being, not a doll or a toy. You need to see about having her baptized."
There are aspects to this that we don't know. Baptism is not an affirmation of the parents lifestyle. It is for the benefit of the child. I hope and pray that she recieves the appropriate spiritual guidance that will enable her to live her life as a good Catholic.
 :pray: :pray: :pray:  
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: poche on June 02, 2014, 02:37:51 AM
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: Guest
poche,

Why are you quoting ("rough translation") from the 1917 Code of Canon Law when you believe it has been superseded?


You are missing the point Poche.

Whatever is the current code of Canon Law is the only law that applies now.

If you believe the 1983 Code is legitimate, then you must believe that it is the law now.

If you reject the 1983 Code, then fine, quote from the 1917 as being the current law.

I think that it is interesting how Novus Ordo in this respect the posters who generally consider traditionalists have been in this regard. I remember a time when the 1917 code was in effect and hearing stories about Protestants bringing their children to the Catholic Church and asking that they be baptized.
I found this entry in the 1917 code by accident while I was looking for something else and I believe that it iw why the Vatican gave the go ahead for this to go through. It is best to look to the tradition of the Catholic church to light to what we should do today.      
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on June 02, 2014, 05:24:26 AM
Do you think those lesbians, models of impurity and unnatural vice, are going to give the needed spiritual guidance and raise the girl as good Catholic with sound morals?

In sounder times if the girl could have been taken from her lesbian-mother and given some to nuns to raise as a Catholic THEN it would have been appropriate to have baptized her.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: poche on June 02, 2014, 05:43:20 AM
Quote from: Guest
Do you think those lesbians, models of impurity and unnatural vice, are going to give the needed spiritual guidance and raise the girl as good Catholic with sound morals?

In sounder times if the girl could have been taken from her lesbian-mother and given some to nuns to raise as a Catholic THEN it would have been appropriate to have baptized her.

Even in the "best" of families things fo wrong in a very disfunctional way sometimes. The hope is that the appropriate provisions for her Catholic upbringing will be arranged. Sometimes all we can do is pray and trust in the providence o God.  
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on June 02, 2014, 06:53:00 AM
Of course things can go wrong rarely in good Catholic households.

But it is ALREADY ALL WRONG from the start in that LESBIAN household.

Those lesbos can't and won't raise the girl correctly.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: poche on June 02, 2014, 08:42:42 AM
Quote from: Guest
Of course things can go wrong rarely in good Catholic households.

But it is ALREADY ALL WRONG from the start in that LESBIAN household.

Those lesbos can't and won't raise the girl correctly.

That is why the bishop told them that there would have to be a godparent who would take an active role in the spiritual development of the child.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on June 02, 2014, 08:35:41 PM
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Guest
Of course things can go wrong rarely in good Catholic households.

But it is ALREADY ALL WRONG from the start in that LESBIAN household.

Those lesbos can't and won't raise the girl correctly.

That is why the bishop told them that there would have to be a godparent who would take an active role in the spiritual development of the child.


So who is the godparent that has promised to actively ensure the is raised the girl as a Catholic?

Even if the godparent was a good Catholic, due to being raised by lesbians the girl would need a saintly miracle-worker, not just a good godparent.

Reasonable hope that the girl could be raised a Catholic could only be had if the plan was to have the girl was removed from the depraved environment in which diabolically-inspired unnatural vice rules.

This whole thing was a publicity stunt to promote Lesbianism and make it appear to be compatible with Catholicism.

poche, you may mean well, but don't be a sucker, and stop helping them with their anti-Catholic agenda.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on June 03, 2014, 02:32:24 PM
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Guest
Of course things can go wrong rarely in good Catholic households.

But it is ALREADY ALL WRONG from the start in that LESBIAN household.

Those lesbos can't and won't raise the girl correctly.

That is why the bishop told them that there would have to be a godparent who would take an active role in the spiritual development of the child.


Is the bishop who said this a card carrying member of American Atheists or something like that?  Any godparents picked by these wicked women would be  rancid souls also.  Does this bishop think that spiritual problems are solved by worldly means?  

I say baptise the girl in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost and leave her to Heaven.  Anything else is window dressing.  

---------------------------------------------------------------------------




CAPT McQuigg posted this!   :cheers:

Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: poche on June 04, 2014, 12:00:08 AM
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Guest
Of course things can go wrong rarely in good Catholic households.

But it is ALREADY ALL WRONG from the start in that LESBIAN household.

Those lesbos can't and won't raise the girl correctly.

That is why the bishop told them that there would have to be a godparent who would take an active role in the spiritual development of the child.


Is the bishop who said this a card carrying member of American Atheists or something like that?  Any godparents picked by these wicked women would be  rancid souls also.  Does this bishop think that spiritual problems are solved by worldly means?  

I say baptise the girl in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost and leave her to Heaven.  Anything else is window dressing.  

---------------------------------------------------------------------------




CAPT McQuigg posted this!   :cheers:


I think he asked the Congregation for Divine Worship for advice. The reson I brought this up is that in the 1917 code of Canon Law there was a provision for the baptism of non-Catholics which doesn't exist in the 1983 code. If anybody is non-Catholic it would certainly be that couple. Part of the older code required that provision was to be made for the Catholic upbringing of the child to be baptized. I can remember before 1983 and hearing stories about Protestants bringing their children to the Catholic Church to be baptized.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: crossbro on June 04, 2014, 09:11:36 AM
Children raised in gαy households are not and can not be raised Catholic period. It does not matter who the Godparent is.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on June 04, 2014, 08:01:38 PM
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Guest
Of course things can go wrong rarely in good Catholic households.

But it is ALREADY ALL WRONG from the start in that LESBIAN household.

Those lesbos can't and won't raise the girl correctly.

That is why the bishop told them that there would have to be a godparent who would take an active role in the spiritual development of the child.


Is the bishop who said this a card carrying member of American Atheists or something like that?  Any godparents picked by these wicked women would be  rancid souls also.  Does this bishop think that spiritual problems are solved by worldly means?  

I say baptise the girl in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost and leave her to Heaven.  Anything else is window dressing.  

---------------------------------------------------------------------------




CAPT McQuigg posted this!   :cheers:


I think he asked the Congregation for Divine Worship for advice. The reson I brought this up is that in the 1917 code of Canon Law there was a provision for the baptism of non-Catholics which doesn't exist in the 1983 code. If anybody is non-Catholic it would certainly be that couple. Part of the older code required that provision was to be made for the Catholic upbringing of the child to be baptized. I can remember before 1983 and hearing stories about Protestants bringing their children to the Catholic Church to be baptized.


poche,

So you heard some stories. Big deal. Maybe they were wrong, or maybe the stories were of abuses.

How many in the stories you heard were practicing lesbians having a baby in their care baptized??
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on June 04, 2014, 08:02:49 PM
Quote from: crossbro
Children raised in gαy households are not and can not be raised Catholic period. It does not matter who the Godparent is.


Yes, so obvious, but some people can't seem to get it.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: poche on June 04, 2014, 11:06:48 PM
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Guest
Of course things can go wrong rarely in good Catholic households.

But it is ALREADY ALL WRONG from the start in that LESBIAN household.

Those lesbos can't and won't raise the girl correctly.

That is why the bishop told them that there would have to be a godparent who would take an active role in the spiritual development of the child.


Is the bishop who said this a card carrying member of American Atheists or something like that?  Any godparents picked by these wicked women would be  rancid souls also.  Does this bishop think that spiritual problems are solved by worldly means?  

I say baptise the girl in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost and leave her to Heaven.  Anything else is window dressing.  

---------------------------------------------------------------------------




CAPT McQuigg posted this!   :cheers:


I think he asked the Congregation for Divine Worship for advice. The reson I brought this up is that in the 1917 code of Canon Law there was a provision for the baptism of non-Catholics which doesn't exist in the 1983 code. If anybody is non-Catholic it would certainly be that couple. Part of the older code required that provision was to be made for the Catholic upbringing of the child to be baptized. I can remember before 1983 and hearing stories about Protestants bringing their children to the Catholic Church to be baptized.


poche,

So you heard some stories. Big deal. Maybe they were wrong, or maybe the stories were of abuses.

How many in the stories you heard were practicing lesbians having a baby in their care baptized??

Only this case.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on June 07, 2014, 01:17:55 AM
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Guest
Of course things can go wrong rarely in good Catholic households.

But it is ALREADY ALL WRONG from the start in that LESBIAN household.

Those lesbos can't and won't raise the girl correctly.

That is why the bishop told them that there would have to be a godparent who would take an active role in the spiritual development of the child.


Is the bishop who said this a card carrying member of American Atheists or something like that?  Any godparents picked by these wicked women would be  rancid souls also.  Does this bishop think that spiritual problems are solved by worldly means?  

I say baptise the girl in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost and leave her to Heaven.  Anything else is window dressing.  

---------------------------------------------------------------------------




CAPT McQuigg posted this!   :cheers:


I think he asked the Congregation for Divine Worship for advice. The reson I brought this up is that in the 1917 code of Canon Law there was a provision for the baptism of non-Catholics which doesn't exist in the 1983 code. If anybody is non-Catholic it would certainly be that couple. Part of the older code required that provision was to be made for the Catholic upbringing of the child to be baptized. I can remember before 1983 and hearing stories about Protestants bringing their children to the Catholic Church to be baptized.


poche,

So you heard some stories. Big deal. Maybe they were wrong, or maybe the stories were of abuses.

How many in the stories you heard were practicing lesbians having a baby in their care baptized??

Only this case.


Right.

There is no comparison.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: poche on June 08, 2014, 11:12:30 PM
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: crossbro
Children raised in gαy households are not and can not be raised Catholic period. It does not matter who the Godparent is.


Yes, so obvious, but some people can't seem to get it.

Apparently it had happenned often enough that non-Catholics had offered their children for baptism that the Code of 1917 made mention made provisions for this situation. If there were ever a non-Catholic situation it would be this.  
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on June 09, 2014, 03:48:27 AM
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: crossbro
Children raised in gαy households are not and can not be raised Catholic period. It does not matter who the Godparent is.


Yes, so obvious, but some people can't seem to get it.

Apparently it had happenned often enough that non-Catholics had offered their children for baptism that the Code of 1917 made mention made provisions for this situation. If there were ever a non-Catholic situation it would be this.  


poche, are you thick or on drugs or something?



You already admitted that, prior to this outrageous scandal you have never heard of one single case of practicing lesbians being allowed to have a child their care baptized.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on June 09, 2014, 03:50:46 AM
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Guest
Of course things can go wrong rarely in good Catholic households.

But it is ALREADY ALL WRONG from the start in that LESBIAN household.

Those lesbos can't and won't raise the girl correctly.

That is why the bishop told them that there would have to be a godparent who would take an active role in the spiritual development of the child.


Is the bishop who said this a card carrying member of American Atheists or something like that?  Any godparents picked by these wicked women would be  rancid souls also.  Does this bishop think that spiritual problems are solved by worldly means?  

I say baptise the girl in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost and leave her to Heaven.  Anything else is window dressing.  

---------------------------------------------------------------------------




CAPT McQuigg posted this!   :cheers:


I think he asked the Congregation for Divine Worship for advice. The reson I brought this up is that in the 1917 code of Canon Law there was a provision for the baptism of non-Catholics which doesn't exist in the 1983 code. If anybody is non-Catholic it would certainly be that couple. Part of the older code required that provision was to be made for the Catholic upbringing of the child to be baptized. I can remember before 1983 and hearing stories about Protestants bringing their children to the Catholic Church to be baptized.


poche,

So you heard some stories. Big deal. Maybe they were wrong, or maybe the stories were of abuses.

How many in the stories you heard were practicing lesbians having a baby in their care baptized??

Only this case.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: poche on June 09, 2014, 10:43:22 PM
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: crossbro
Children raised in gαy households are not and can not be raised Catholic period. It does not matter who the Godparent is.


Yes, so obvious, but some people can't seem to get it.

Apparently it had happenned often enough that non-Catholics had offered their children for baptism that the Code of 1917 made mention made provisions for this situation. If there were ever a non-Catholic situation it would be this.  


poche, are you thick or on drugs or something?



You already admitted that, prior to this outrageous scandal you have never heard of one single case of practicing lesbians being allowed to have a child their care baptized.

That is correct. However in the past I have heard of non-Catholics asking that their children be baptized in the Catholic Church. Apparently this happened ofren enough that this situation is covered in the 1917 Code of Canon Law. If anything is very non-Catholic it is a Lesbian couple.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on June 10, 2014, 05:51:40 AM
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: crossbro
Children raised in gαy households are not and can not be raised Catholic period. It does not matter who the Godparent is.


Yes, so obvious, but some people can't seem to get it.

Apparently it had happenned often enough that non-Catholics had offered their children for baptism that the Code of 1917 made mention made provisions for this situation. If there were ever a non-Catholic situation it would be this.  


poche, are you thick or on drugs or something?



You already admitted that, prior to this outrageous scandal you have never heard of one single case of practicing lesbians being allowed to have a child their care baptized.

That is correct. However in the past I have heard of non-Catholics asking that their children be baptized in the Catholic Church. Apparently this happened ofren enough that this situation is covered in the 1917 Code of Canon Law. If anything is very non-Catholic it is a Lesbian couple.


Non-Catholic does not equal Co-habitating Lesbians.

It is an un-Catholic practice to baptize a girl who is being raised by Cohabitating Lesbians that are unable to raise the girl in the Faith.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on June 10, 2014, 05:14:51 PM
If the lesbians split up and practice chastity, the child MAY have a chance of being raised godly and Catholic. However, there is such a sense of pride and gluttony in those sinking in deep, obstinate sin that it probably wouldn't happen.

That child would just be confused with the next new wretched sodomite that comes through the doors.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: poche on June 10, 2014, 11:24:31 PM
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: crossbro
Children raised in gαy households are not and can not be raised Catholic period. It does not matter who the Godparent is.


Yes, so obvious, but some people can't seem to get it.

Apparently it had happenned often enough that non-Catholics had offered their children for baptism that the Code of 1917 made mention made provisions for this situation. If there were ever a non-Catholic situation it would be this.  


poche, are you thick or on drugs or something?



You already admitted that, prior to this outrageous scandal you have never heard of one single case of practicing lesbians being allowed to have a child their care baptized.

That is correct. However in the past I have heard of non-Catholics asking that their children be baptized in the Catholic Church. Apparently this happened ofren enough that this situation is covered in the 1917 Code of Canon Law. If anything is very non-Catholic it is a Lesbian couple.


Non-Catholic does not equal Co-habitating Lesbians.

It is an un-Catholic practice to baptize a girl who is being raised by Cohabitating Lesbians that are unable to raise the girl in the Faith.

It is a similar situation to baptizing the child of a non-Catholic. How is a non-Catholic going to be able to raise their child in the Catholic Faith? That is why the 1917 code requiredd that provision be made for the upbringing of the child in the Catholic Faith.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on June 11, 2014, 05:52:02 AM
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: crossbro
Children raised in gαy households are not and can not be raised Catholic period. It does not matter who the Godparent is.


Yes, so obvious, but some people can't seem to get it.

Apparently it had happenned often enough that non-Catholics had offered their children for baptism that the Code of 1917 made mention made provisions for this situation. If there were ever a non-Catholic situation it would be this.  


poche, are you thick or on drugs or something?



You already admitted that, prior to this outrageous scandal you have never heard of one single case of practicing lesbians being allowed to have a child their care baptized.

That is correct. However in the past I have heard of non-Catholics asking that their children be baptized in the Catholic Church. Apparently this happened ofren enough that this situation is covered in the 1917 Code of Canon Law. If anything is very non-Catholic it is a Lesbian couple.


Non-Catholic does not equal Co-habitating Lesbians.

It is an un-Catholic practice to baptize a girl who is being raised by Cohabitating Lesbians that are unable to raise the girl in the Faith.

It is a similar situation to baptizing the child of a non-Catholic. How is a non-Catholic going to be able to raise their child in the Catholic Faith? That is why the 1917 code requiredd that provision be made for the upbringing of the child in the Catholic Faith.


In fact it is not similar.

The non-Catholics of old days who had care of the child would have most probably at least been living according to the natural laws that God ordained. Such people may not have raised the child as a Catholic themselves, but they also were not living in opposition to such and they could let the Church instill Catholicism through its schools and nuns, etc. without mocking and contradicting every moment of every day.

In contrast the lesbians (who purport to be Catholic do they not?) are in reality adamantly rejecting both Catholicism and the Natural Law, whilst living as rebels who constantly  practice and promote unnatural vice.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on June 11, 2014, 01:13:11 PM
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: crossbro
Children raised in gαy households are not and can not be raised Catholic period. It does not matter who the Godparent is.


Yes, so obvious, but some people can't seem to get it.

Apparently it had happenned often enough that non-Catholics had offered their children for baptism that the Code of 1917 made mention made provisions for this situation. If there were ever a non-Catholic situation it would be this.  


poche, are you thick or on drugs or something?



You already admitted that, prior to this outrageous scandal you have never heard of one single case of practicing lesbians being allowed to have a child their care baptized.

That is correct. However in the past I have heard of non-Catholics asking that their children be baptized in the Catholic Church. Apparently this happened ofren enough that this situation is covered in the 1917 Code of Canon Law. If anything is very non-Catholic it is a Lesbian couple.


Non-Catholic does not equal Co-habitating Lesbians.

It is an un-Catholic practice to baptize a girl who is being raised by Cohabitating Lesbians that are unable to raise the girl in the Faith.

It is a similar situation to baptizing the child of a non-Catholic. How is a non-Catholic going to be able to raise their child in the Catholic Faith? That is why the 1917 code requiredd that provision be made for the upbringing of the child in the Catholic Faith.


In fact it is not similar.

The non-Catholics of old days who had care of the child would have most probably at least been living according to the natural laws that God ordained. Such people may not have raised the child as a Catholic themselves, but they also were not living in opposition to such and they could let the Church instill Catholicism through its schools and nuns, etc. without mocking and contradicting every moment of every day.

In contrast the lesbians (who purport to be Catholic do they not?) are in reality adamantly rejecting both Catholicism and the Natural Law, whilst living as rebels who constantly  practice and promote unnatural vice.



excellent comment.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: soulguard on June 11, 2014, 01:35:31 PM
Why is this stupid thread replied to so much?

The conculsion is obvious. One does not baptize those who will not live a Catholic life, because if you do, then when they go to hell, their suffering is worse.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on June 11, 2014, 08:47:35 PM
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: crossbro
Children raised in gαy households are not and can not be raised Catholic period. It does not matter who the Godparent is.


Yes, so obvious, but some people can't seem to get it.

Apparently it had happenned often enough that non-Catholics had offered their children for baptism that the Code of 1917 made mention made provisions for this situation. If there were ever a non-Catholic situation it would be this.  


poche, are you thick or on drugs or something?



You already admitted that, prior to this outrageous scandal you have never heard of one single case of practicing lesbians being allowed to have a child their care baptized.

That is correct. However in the past I have heard of non-Catholics asking that their children be baptized in the Catholic Church. Apparently this happened ofren enough that this situation is covered in the 1917 Code of Canon Law. If anything is very non-Catholic it is a Lesbian couple.


Non-Catholic does not equal Co-habitating Lesbians.

It is an un-Catholic practice to baptize a girl who is being raised by Cohabitating Lesbians that are unable to raise the girl in the Faith.

It is a similar situation to baptizing the child of a non-Catholic. How is a non-Catholic going to be able to raise their child in the Catholic Faith? That is why the 1917 code requiredd that provision be made for the upbringing of the child in the Catholic Faith.


In fact it is not similar.

The non-Catholics of old days who had care of the child would have most probably at least been living according to the natural laws that God ordained. Such people may not have raised the child as a Catholic themselves, but they also were not living in opposition to such and they could let the Church instill Catholicism through its schools and nuns, etc. without mocking and contradicting every moment of every day.

In contrast the lesbians (who purport to be Catholic do they not?) are in reality adamantly rejecting both Catholicism and the Natural Law, whilst living as rebels who constantly  practice and promote unnatural vice.



excellent comment.


Thank you. Do you agree poche?
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on June 11, 2014, 09:08:28 PM
Quote from: soulguard
Why is this stupid thread replied to so much?

The conculsion is obvious. One does not baptize those who will not live a Catholic life, because if you do, then when they go to hell, their suffering is worse.


The thread itself is not stupid.

But some participants have had problems understanding the obvious.

Some of us have been trying to help them and show the truth.

Poche seemed to finally understand, but then recently he revived the thread and showed he had reverted to his earlier incomprehension. He is misunderstanding and misapplying something he read in the Code of Canon Law.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: poche on June 12, 2014, 01:07:50 AM
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: crossbro
Children raised in gαy households are not and can not be raised Catholic period. It does not matter who the Godparent is.


Yes, so obvious, but some people can't seem to get it.

Apparently it had happenned often enough that non-Catholics had offered their children for baptism that the Code of 1917 made mention made provisions for this situation. If there were ever a non-Catholic situation it would be this.  


poche, are you thick or on drugs or something?



You already admitted that, prior to this outrageous scandal you have never heard of one single case of practicing lesbians being allowed to have a child their care baptized.

That is correct. However in the past I have heard of non-Catholics asking that their children be baptized in the Catholic Church. Apparently this happened ofren enough that this situation is covered in the 1917 Code of Canon Law. If anything is very non-Catholic it is a Lesbian couple.


Non-Catholic does not equal Co-habitating Lesbians.

It is an un-Catholic practice to baptize a girl who is being raised by Cohabitating Lesbians that are unable to raise the girl in the Faith.

It is a similar situation to baptizing the child of a non-Catholic. How is a non-Catholic going to be able to raise their child in the Catholic Faith? That is why the 1917 code requiredd that provision be made for the upbringing of the child in the Catholic Faith.


In fact it is not similar.

The non-Catholics of old days who had care of the child would have most probably at least been living according to the natural laws that God ordained. Such people may not have raised the child as a Catholic themselves, but they also were not living in opposition to such and they could let the Church instill Catholicism through its schools and nuns, etc. without mocking and contradicting every moment of every day.

In contrast the lesbians (who purport to be Catholic do they not?) are in reality adamantly rejecting both Catholicism and the Natural Law, whilst living as rebels who constantly  practice and promote unnatural vice.



excellent comment.


Thank you. Do you agree poche?

You would think so but then still in the situation of teh non-Catholic parents the upbringing of the child baptized in the Catholic church needs to be looked at. For example when it is time to go to church on sunday where ae they going to go? Thje Methodist Lutheran Presbyrterian church of the child's parents? How will they be teaching her to pray? What catechism will she be studying?
These issues have come up before and they were dealt with in the 1917 code.  
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: poche on June 12, 2014, 01:09:16 AM
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: soulguard
Why is this stupid thread replied to so much?

The conculsion is obvious. One does not baptize those who will not live a Catholic life, because if you do, then when they go to hell, their suffering is worse.


The thread itself is not stupid.

But some participants have had problems understanding the obvious.

Some of us have been trying to help them and show the truth.

Poche seemed to finally understand, but then recently he revived the thread and showed he had reverted to his earlier incomprehension. He is misunderstanding and misapplying something he read in the Code of Canon Law.

The Code of Canon Law is the 1917 Code of Canon law, the code that was in effect prior to Vatican II.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on June 12, 2014, 02:50:00 AM
So poche do you still think the daughter of a practicing lesbian should be baptized while she is being raised by the lesbian and another another  practicing lesbian who both clearly and publicly reject Church Teaching and Church Laws?
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: poche on June 12, 2014, 03:59:48 AM
Quote from: Guest
So poche do you still think the daughter of a practicing lesbian should be baptized while she is being raised by the lesbian and another another  practicing lesbian who both clearly and publicly reject Church Teaching and Church Laws?

I think all this objection to the child's baptism is very Novus Ordo. If I just went by the 1983 Code I would say "no." If it was up to me I would send in the CPS to investigate.
But with the bishop's requirement that htere be someone else around to offer spiritual guidance and the light from the 1917 code, and in consideration of how the Church did things in the past. Prior to the 1810s it was the custom of priests to baptize whatever baby was brought to them. It did not matter, Catholic, Protestant, Pagan Indian, they were all baptized.
And while people didn't talk about these things the way they do now that would include the child of people in very immoral situations.      
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on June 13, 2014, 12:33:37 AM
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Guest
So poche do you still think the daughter of a practicing lesbian should be baptized while she is being raised by the lesbian and another another  practicing lesbian who both clearly and publicly reject Church Teaching and Church Laws?

I think all this objection to the child's baptism is very Novus Ordo. If I just went by the 1983 Code I would say "no." If it was up to me I would send in the CPS to investigate.
But with the bishop's requirement that htere be someone else around to offer spiritual guidance and the light from the 1917 code, and in consideration of how the Church did things in the past. Prior to the 1810s it was the custom of priests to baptize whatever baby was brought to them. It did not matter, Catholic, Protestant, Pagan Indian, they were all baptized.
And while people didn't talk about these things the way they do now that would include the child of people in very immoral situations.      


The objection to this baptism is not Novus Ordo.

The publicity stunt baptism is very Novus Ordo.

Can you point us to some docuмentation that explains what you think happened in the 1810’s that changed a prior accepted practice? Did the Church at that time correct a "custom" that in reality was something that had developed into a widespread abuse?
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on June 17, 2014, 01:12:10 AM
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Guest
So poche do you still think the daughter of a practicing lesbian should be baptized while she is being raised by the lesbian and another another  practicing lesbian who both clearly and publicly reject Church Teaching and Church Laws?

I think all this objection to the child's baptism is very Novus Ordo. If I just went by the 1983 Code I would say "no." If it was up to me I would send in the CPS to investigate.
But with the bishop's requirement that htere be someone else around to offer spiritual guidance and the light from the 1917 code, and in consideration of how the Church did things in the past. Prior to the 1810s it was the custom of priests to baptize whatever baby was brought to them. It did not matter, Catholic, Protestant, Pagan Indian, they were all baptized.
And while people didn't talk about these things the way they do now that would include the child of people in very immoral situations.      


The objection to this baptism is not Novus Ordo.

The publicity stunt baptism is very Novus Ordo.

Can you point us to some docuмentation that explains what you think happened in the 1810’s that changed a prior accepted practice? Did the Church at that time correct a "custom" that in reality was something that had developed into a widespread abuse?


poche, do you have any sources for us to back up your statements, or are they just more tales that you heard or think you heard?
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: poche on June 19, 2014, 01:24:20 AM
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Guest
So poche do you still think the daughter of a practicing lesbian should be baptized while she is being raised by the lesbian and another another  practicing lesbian who both clearly and publicly reject Church Teaching and Church Laws?

I think all this objection to the child's baptism is very Novus Ordo. If I just went by the 1983 Code I would say "no." If it was up to me I would send in the CPS to investigate.
But with the bishop's requirement that htere be someone else around to offer spiritual guidance and the light from the 1917 code, and in consideration of how the Church did things in the past. Prior to the 1810s it was the custom of priests to baptize whatever baby was brought to them. It did not matter, Catholic, Protestant, Pagan Indian, they were all baptized.
And while people didn't talk about these things the way they do now that would include the child of people in very immoral situations.      


The objection to this baptism is not Novus Ordo.

The publicity stunt baptism is very Novus Ordo.

Can you point us to some docuмentation that explains what you think happened in the 1810’s that changed a prior accepted practice? Did the Church at that time correct a "custom" that in reality was something that had developed into a widespread abuse?

Actually the year is 1825 and there is a postscript from the Archives at Notre Dame.

 He is induced to violate the laws of correspondence by answering Rese's two Italian letters in English. He has been delayed by a fracture of his collar bone resulting from a fall from a horse and the expectation of a visit from Bishop (Edward Dominic) Fenwick to explain the enigma of the kidnapped nun. When Fenwick's heartrending letter came he judged that he must explain his refusal to go to the diocese of Cincinnati more fully. Though they promise not to kidnap him, he feels that they want him permanently and that his remaining there would be involved. He is now busy with this large congregation, that of Bullet and with classes in the seminary with Father (John) David. Despite the flourishing condition of the diocese, all their priests are needed and the withdrawal of any might be fatal. The Dominicans at St. Rose have suffered from the withdrawal of some of their members to go to Cincinnati. Rese must remember that the institutions of Bardstown were not founded all at once but are the product of long years of labor and toil. He himself feels that like Rese he is not long in the missionary field and that he needs the direction of old and experienced missionaries. If he left he would become the regulator of his own conduct. Further, Rese's new foundations need a man skilled in temporal matters. He has omitted to mention also that since he was sent by the Propaganda for Kentucky he does not feel that he can leave there without a command from Rome after the matter has been well understood. He is, however, anxious for Rese's and Fenwick's success. The results of his inquiries concerning Father Chignard have not been favorable. Father Evremond had but a few months acquaintance with him. Rese might write to Father Niel of St. Louis for more exact information. (Flaget) does not insist on the amount of land Rese indicates for establishing a church in Indiana. Kenrick asks that the Dominicans bring the package for David. Father (Stephen Theodore) Badin left a book for Rese.
P.S. Monsignor (Peter) Caprano has written him against the custom of baptizing the children of heretics even with the promise of the parents and quotes the decrees of the Inquisition of Nov. 29, 1764 and Jan. 21, 1767 on the matter.

http://archives.nd.edu/calendar/cal1825.htm
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on June 19, 2014, 06:55:37 PM
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Guest
So poche do you still think the daughter of a practicing lesbian should be baptized while she is being raised by the lesbian and another another  practicing lesbian who both clearly and publicly reject Church Teaching and Church Laws?

I think all this objection to the child's baptism is very Novus Ordo. If I just went by the 1983 Code I would say "no." If it was up to me I would send in the CPS to investigate.
But with the bishop's requirement that htere be someone else around to offer spiritual guidance and the light from the 1917 code, and in consideration of how the Church did things in the past. Prior to the 1810s it was the custom of priests to baptize whatever baby was brought to them. It did not matter, Catholic, Protestant, Pagan Indian, they were all baptized.
And while people didn't talk about these things the way they do now that would include the child of people in very immoral situations.      


The objection to this baptism is not Novus Ordo.

The publicity stunt baptism is very Novus Ordo.

Can you point us to some docuмentation that explains what you think happened in the 1810’s that changed a prior accepted practice? Did the Church at that time correct a "custom" that in reality was something that had developed into a widespread abuse?

Actually the year is 1825 and there is a postscript from the Archives at Notre Dame.

 He is induced to violate the laws of correspondence by answering Rese's two Italian letters in English. He has been delayed by a fracture of his collar bone resulting from a fall from a horse and the expectation of a visit from Bishop (Edward Dominic) Fenwick to explain the enigma of the kidnapped nun. When Fenwick's heartrending letter came he judged that he must explain his refusal to go to the diocese of Cincinnati more fully. Though they promise not to kidnap him, he feels that they want him permanently and that his remaining there would be involved. He is now busy with this large congregation, that of Bullet and with classes in the seminary with Father (John) David. Despite the flourishing condition of the diocese, all their priests are needed and the withdrawal of any might be fatal. The Dominicans at St. Rose have suffered from the withdrawal of some of their members to go to Cincinnati. Rese must remember that the institutions of Bardstown were not founded all at once but are the product of long years of labor and toil. He himself feels that like Rese he is not long in the missionary field and that he needs the direction of old and experienced missionaries. If he left he would become the regulator of his own conduct. Further, Rese's new foundations need a man skilled in temporal matters. He has omitted to mention also that since he was sent by the Propaganda for Kentucky he does not feel that he can leave there without a command from Rome after the matter has been well understood. He is, however, anxious for Rese's and Fenwick's success. The results of his inquiries concerning Father Chignard have not been favorable. Father Evremond had but a few months acquaintance with him. Rese might write to Father Niel of St. Louis for more exact information. (Flaget) does not insist on the amount of land Rese indicates for establishing a church in Indiana. Kenrick asks that the Dominicans bring the package for David. Father (Stephen Theodore) Badin left a book for Rese.
P.S. Monsignor (Peter) Caprano has written him against the custom of baptizing the children of heretics even with the promise of the parents and quotes the decrees of the Inquisition of Nov. 29, 1764 and Jan. 21, 1767 on the matter.

http://archives.nd.edu/calendar/cal1825.htm


Thanks Poche, but don’t you see this goes against your argument.

The Church decreed against the abuse or "custom".

Is that all you have??
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: poche on June 19, 2014, 11:14:09 PM
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Guest
So poche do you still think the daughter of a practicing lesbian should be baptized while she is being raised by the lesbian and another another  practicing lesbian who both clearly and publicly reject Church Teaching and Church Laws?

I think all this objection to the child's baptism is very Novus Ordo. If I just went by the 1983 Code I would say "no." If it was up to me I would send in the CPS to investigate.
But with the bishop's requirement that htere be someone else around to offer spiritual guidance and the light from the 1917 code, and in consideration of how the Church did things in the past. Prior to the 1810s it was the custom of priests to baptize whatever baby was brought to them. It did not matter, Catholic, Protestant, Pagan Indian, they were all baptized.
And while people didn't talk about these things the way they do now that would include the child of people in very immoral situations.      


The objection to this baptism is not Novus Ordo.

The publicity stunt baptism is very Novus Ordo.

Can you point us to some docuмentation that explains what you think happened in the 1810’s that changed a prior accepted practice? Did the Church at that time correct a "custom" that in reality was something that had developed into a widespread abuse?

Actually the year is 1825 and there is a postscript from the Archives at Notre Dame.

 He is induced to violate the laws of correspondence by answering Rese's two Italian letters in English. He has been delayed by a fracture of his collar bone resulting from a fall from a horse and the expectation of a visit from Bishop (Edward Dominic) Fenwick to explain the enigma of the kidnapped nun. When Fenwick's heartrending letter came he judged that he must explain his refusal to go to the diocese of Cincinnati more fully. Though they promise not to kidnap him, he feels that they want him permanently and that his remaining there would be involved. He is now busy with this large congregation, that of Bullet and with classes in the seminary with Father (John) David. Despite the flourishing condition of the diocese, all their priests are needed and the withdrawal of any might be fatal. The Dominicans at St. Rose have suffered from the withdrawal of some of their members to go to Cincinnati. Rese must remember that the institutions of Bardstown were not founded all at once but are the product of long years of labor and toil. He himself feels that like Rese he is not long in the missionary field and that he needs the direction of old and experienced missionaries. If he left he would become the regulator of his own conduct. Further, Rese's new foundations need a man skilled in temporal matters. He has omitted to mention also that since he was sent by the Propaganda for Kentucky he does not feel that he can leave there without a command from Rome after the matter has been well understood. He is, however, anxious for Rese's and Fenwick's success. The results of his inquiries concerning Father Chignard have not been favorable. Father Evremond had but a few months acquaintance with him. Rese might write to Father Niel of St. Louis for more exact information. (Flaget) does not insist on the amount of land Rese indicates for establishing a church in Indiana. Kenrick asks that the Dominicans bring the package for David. Father (Stephen Theodore) Badin left a book for Rese.
P.S. Monsignor (Peter) Caprano has written him against the custom of baptizing the children of heretics even with the promise of the parents and quotes the decrees of the Inquisition of Nov. 29, 1764 and Jan. 21, 1767 on the matter.

http://archives.nd.edu/calendar/cal1825.htm


Thanks Poche, but don’t you see this goes against your argument.

The Church decreed against the abuse or "custom".

Is that all you have??

If it was a custom that had been in use then that means that it had been going on for a long time. There were other instances where sacraments were administered to non-Catholics. For example, bishop Penlaver wanted all marriages in the diocese , an area at that time extending from Michigan, through Louisianna, through Florida, to be administered by the Catholic Church even to Protestants.  
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on June 21, 2014, 07:33:11 AM
Poche you are just speculating.

An abuse can become commonplace and occur for a long time; some people then call the abuse a custom.

The Church decreed on the subject.

Why are you so desperate to justify what the lesbians and Novus Ordo clerics did?

(The matter of marriage is a complicated and different subject altogether.)
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on June 21, 2014, 10:05:45 AM
This so called custom is different from Tradition. It has been custom for the last 50 years to receive communion in the hand - it is still an abuse, given permission to continue due to the custom that evolved BECAUSE PRIESTS DID NOT CONTROL THE ABUSE AND ALLOWED IT TO CONTINUE FOR SO LONG. That is exactly the goal they are going with here.  If they can start this precedent and have it evolve into being custom then they can have it sealed into law.  Does anyone here honestly think this child will be raised to think that her "parents" relationship is immoral or wrong? No, they are hoping to "grow into the faith" a future generation of children who think this behavior is moral and acceptable for the catholic church.  It will no longer be necessary to definitively say it is allowed but just allow it because everyone around allows it.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: poche on June 21, 2014, 11:05:03 PM
Quote from: Guest
Poche you are just speculating.

An abuse can become commonplace and occur for a long time; some people then call the abuse a custom.

The Church decreed on the subject.

Why are you so desperate to justify what the lesbians and Novus Ordo clerics did?

(The matter of marriage is a complicated and different subject altogether.)

It appears that the church goes back and forth on the issue of baptism. Fro example in the 1790s bishop Penlaver reminded the priests that when a baby was born they were to exhort the parents to have the baby baptized within 8 days. the evidence points to all babies being baptized no matter who the parents were. Later on another rule citing contradictory rulings cancelled that for the children of heretics. Then in 1917 the Code provided for the baptism of heretics, fallen away catholics and apostates. Then in 1983 a general rule deferred the baptism of infants where the priest was unsure as to whether the child would be raised a Catholic.

The discipline has changed. It used to be that you could call the parish priest and have your baby baptized on the way home from the hospital. Then some time in the 60s that changed. Now, they are scheduled maybe once a month. Attendance at pre-baptismal classes is required.

When I compare the 1917 code and the 1983 code and the general practices it appears somewhat Novus Ordoish of you to raise so much of a fuss about the baptism of this child. The Church baptized the children of slaves, the mulatto children of common-law mistresses of slave owners, the children of pagan Indians, children who were living in circuмstances which would rival what we are talking about here. I could be wrong but it is just an observation.
 :scratchchin: :scratchchin: :scratchchin:        
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: poche on June 22, 2014, 02:46:38 AM
The Irish Archdiocese of Tuam has revealed that all of the children born out of wedlock at a "mother and child" home in Galway were baptized, contrary to reports that had circulated alleging that the children were buried without benefit of the sacraments.

Early reports about the Church-run institution in Galway had suggested that the bodies of nearly 800 children were discarded. In fact they were buried, and archdiocesan records prove that they were baptized. The impoverished institution did have a very high rate of mortality among infants, reflecting the generally high rate in all of Ireland during the early 20th century.




http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=21747
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on June 22, 2014, 06:36:57 PM
Quote from: poche
The Irish Archdiocese of Tuam has revealed that all of the children born out of wedlock at a "mother and child" home in Galway were baptized, contrary to reports that had circulated alleging that the children were buried without benefit of the sacraments.

Early reports about the Church-run institution[/b] in Galway had suggested that the bodies of nearly 800 children were discarded. In fact they were buried, and archdiocesan records prove that they were baptized. The impoverished institution did have a very high rate of mortality among infants, reflecting the generally high rate in all of Ireland during the early 20th century.




http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=21747


The Church-run institution would have made sure that children there were raised as Catholics.

This story is not relevant to the discussion here about the lesbians and the child of one of them who the outspoken lesbians intend to raise in an un-Catholic lesbian environment.

Poche The Defender of Scandal does not seem to be able to grasp that basic distinction.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: poche on June 23, 2014, 12:33:37 AM
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: poche
The Irish Archdiocese of Tuam has revealed that all of the children born out of wedlock at a "mother and child" home in Galway were baptized, contrary to reports that had circulated alleging that the children were buried without benefit of the sacraments.

Early reports about the Church-run institution[/b] in Galway had suggested that the bodies of nearly 800 children were discarded. In fact they were buried, and archdiocesan records prove that they were baptized. The impoverished institution did have a very high rate of mortality among infants, reflecting the generally high rate in all of Ireland during the early 20th century.




http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=21747


The Church-run institution would have made sure that children there were raised as Catholics.

This story is not relevant to the discussion here about the lesbians and the child of one of them who the outspoken lesbians intend to raise in an un-Catholic lesbian environment.

Poche The Defender of Scandal does not seem to be able to grasp that basic distinction.

there is no guarantee that the children who left with their un-wed mother would get a Catholic education.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on June 23, 2014, 04:21:27 AM
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: poche
The Irish Archdiocese of Tuam has revealed that all of the children born out of wedlock at a "mother and child" home in Galway were baptized, contrary to reports that had circulated alleging that the children were buried without benefit of the sacraments.

Early reports about the Church-run institution[/b] in Galway had suggested that the bodies of nearly 800 children were discarded. In fact they were buried, and archdiocesan records prove that they were baptized. The impoverished institution did have a very high rate of mortality among infants, reflecting the generally high rate in all of Ireland during the early 20th century.




http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=21747


The Church-run institution would have made sure that children there were raised as Catholics.

This story is not relevant to the discussion here about the lesbians and the child of one of them who the outspoken lesbians intend to raise in an un-Catholic lesbian environment.

Poche The Defender of Scandal does not seem to be able to grasp that basic distinction.

there is no guarantee that the children who left with their un-wed mother would get a Catholic education.


Why are you introducing something ridiculous? There is never a GUARANTEE is there? The Code does not mention anything about guarantees.

Be reasonable please.

Back to reality, the “Church-run institution” would have made provision for Catholic education. Canon 750 mentions "provided provision is made for Catholic education".

Canon 751 says “generally” in its instruction on how to apply it to the infants of TWO heretics, infants of TWO schismatics, and infants of TWO apostates.

The infant of the Lesbian mother is the infant of her and who else? Was it a sperm donation? Is a sperm donor a father, or a sperm donor?

Two Lesbians who have care of a child are not providing for a Catholic education, they can’t raise a girl as Catholic and educate her as a Catholic.

The Code is about what is licit and illicit, and associated penalties. It does not explain everything about the law. That is why there are Canon Lawyers and why the Church issues approved Catholic Commentaries on the Code. The Church also issues other instructions about acceptable Catholic behavior, because the Code is not the be all and end all of what is to be done in every possible foreseeable and unforeseeable circuмstance.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: poche on June 23, 2014, 11:44:07 PM
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: poche
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: poche
The Irish Archdiocese of Tuam has revealed that all of the children born out of wedlock at a "mother and child" home in Galway were baptized, contrary to reports that had circulated alleging that the children were buried without benefit of the sacraments.

Early reports about the Church-run institution[/b] in Galway had suggested that the bodies of nearly 800 children were discarded. In fact they were buried, and archdiocesan records prove that they were baptized. The impoverished institution did have a very high rate of mortality among infants, reflecting the generally high rate in all of Ireland during the early 20th century.




http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=21747


The Church-run institution would have made sure that children there were raised as Catholics.

This story is not relevant to the discussion here about the lesbians and the child of one of them who the outspoken lesbians intend to raise in an un-Catholic lesbian environment.

Poche The Defender of Scandal does not seem to be able to grasp that basic distinction.

there is no guarantee that the children who left with their un-wed mother would get a Catholic education.


Why are you introducing something ridiculous? There is never a GUARANTEE is there? The Code does not mention anything about guarantees.

Be reasonable please.

Back to reality, the “Church-run institution” would have made provision for Catholic education. Canon 750 mentions "provided provision is made for Catholic education".

Canon 751 says “generally” in its instruction on how to apply it to the infants of TWO heretics, infants of TWO schismatics, and infants of TWO apostates.

The infant of the Lesbian mother is the infant of her and who else? Was it a sperm donation? Is a sperm donor a father, or a sperm donor?

Two Lesbians who have care of a child are not providing for a Catholic education, they can’t raise a girl as Catholic and educate her as a Catholic.

The Code is about what is licit and illicit, and associated penalties. It does not explain everything about the law. That is why there are Canon Lawyers and why the Church issues approved Catholic Commentaries on the Code. The Church also issues other instructions about acceptable Catholic behavior, because the Code is not the be all and end all of what is to be done in every possible foreseeable and unforeseeable circuмstance.


Out of your own mouth; The Code is about what is licit and illicit, and associated penalties. It does not explain everything about the law. That is why there are Canon Lawyers and why the Church issues approved Catholic Commentaries on the Code. The Church also issues other instructions about acceptable Catholic behavior, because the Code is not the be all and end all of what is to be done in every possible foreseeable and unforeseeable circuмstance.

I personally would have deferred the baptism but as you point out there are Canon Lawyers and the approved commentaries to rely on I will defer my judgement to them.
 
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on June 24, 2014, 09:36:08 PM
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.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on June 24, 2014, 09:46:43 PM
Correction:

They are all guilty of terrible scandal, and of political maneuvering in efforts give sodomy putative legitimacy in the Church and society.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: poche on June 24, 2014, 10:57:27 PM
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.  
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on June 27, 2014, 12:12:52 AM
You misunderstand.


I think it should not have taken place. Call it defer or whatever you want. There is no way to know the future if it would ever happen later or not at all.


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

But if you think it should not have happened (call it should have been "deferred" if you like) why are you arguing in favor of it having happened?
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on June 27, 2014, 07:27:00 PM
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??
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: poche on June 29, 2014, 11:00:15 PM
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.

Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: poche on June 29, 2014, 11:01:24 PM
Quote from: Guest
You misunderstand.


I think it should not have taken place. Call it defer or whatever you want. There is no way to know the future if it would ever happen later or not at all.


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

But if you think it should not have happened (call it should have been "deferred" if you like) why are you arguing in favor of it having happened?

The 1983 code of Canon law calls for the baptism of the infant to be deferred when it i foreseen that the child will not be brought up in a Christian environment.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on June 30, 2014, 06:09:33 AM
Quote from: poche
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.
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on June 30, 2014, 06:12:44 AM



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?
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: poche on July 01, 2014, 01:06:14 AM
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.  
Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: Änσnymσus on July 01, 2014, 07:13:05 PM
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.


Title: Lesbian couple to have daughter baptized
Post by: poche on July 01, 2014, 11:21:08 PM
Quote from: Guest
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.