Obviously that's a sin, and obviously one can sin after being baptized.

When I see "TransɛҳuąƖs can be Baptized" I think: Yes, and so can murderers, adulterers, or any other type of sinner.

All of them must give up their sinful ways and repent before they are baptized. An adulterer who plans on continuing in his adultery can’t be baptized. A Tranny who continues living an immoral life believing that he can change his sex, can’t be baptized. This is all supposing that they are wanting to be validly and licitly baptized in the Church.

Obviously that's a sin, and obviously one can sin after being baptized.

When I see "TransɛҳuąƖs can be Baptized" I think: Yes, and so can murderers, adulterers, or any other type of sinner.

Murderers can stop murdering and adulterers can stop committing adultery because they are behaviors.  But transsɛҳuąƖs cannot stop "being" their "new" sex....unless they intend to detransition. I've seen nothing that addresses this issue.  

These things are definitely not the same/analogous.  This is a wholly new situation, and it needs a true pope to address it. Catholics shouldn't be dismissing such a baptism with a "Gee whiz, why not?"

Obviously that's a sin, and obviously one can sin after being baptized.

When I see "TransɛҳuąƖs can be Baptized" I think: Yes, and so can murderers, adulterers, or any other type of sinner.

It seems that you want to miss the point.

Manifest evidence of rejection of Catholic dogma is manifest evidence that the person has no intention of being Catholic or of raising children Catholic.

Murderers can stop murdering and adulterers can stop committing adultery because they are behaviors.

And "transɛҳuąƖs" can stop pretending to be the sex they are not.

The American Ecclesiastical Review 1929-09: Vol 81 Iss 3

Pages 306 to 308

https://archive.org/details/sim_american-ecclesiastical-review_1929-09_81_3/page/306/mode/2up




BAPTISM OF A PERSON LIVING IN SIN.



Question

Mrs. B. is invalidly married to a Catholic. The marriage cannot be revalidated owing to the fact that the husband’s first wife is still living. Mrs. B. is well instructed in the Catholic religion and makes open profession of it as far as possible. She desires to be baptized, but her pastor refuses on the ground that she is living in sin and intends to so continue, which constitutes an obstacle to the liceity and validity of the sacrament. Another priest advises him that the sacrament is valid under the circuмstances, but illicit. A third maintains that it is both licit and valid. Which is the correct solution?


Response

It is difficult to understand what reason the pastor has for holding that baptism in this case would be invalid. Probably he confuses the unworthy reception of the sacrament with its invalid reception. Even though received unworthily, the baptism can nevertheless be valid. If only the dispositions of Mrs. B. are considered, that would be verified in the present instance. For Mrs. B. has a very positive intention of receiving baptism in the Catholic Church. On her part therefore nothing prevents the valid reception of that sacrament.1

Her reception of baptism, however, would be unworthy. Worthy reception of baptism by an adult requires that he have at least attrition for his personal sins. Now Mrs. B.’s attrition is insufficient and insincere, since it lacks a necessary complement, namely, a firm purpose of amendment, for she is determined to persevere in her adulterous union. Hence her reception of baptism, while valid, would be unworthy. Far from producing the new man in Christ in her, it would burden her soul with the added guilt of sacrilege.

It were folly here to suggest good faith, seeing that with her acceptance of the Catholic faith she must accept the teaching of the indissolubility of marriage and thus recognize her own sinful state. Even if she were to assert her conviction that her present state is not wrong, she could not be believed; for the Catholic doctrine of the indissolublity of marriage, of the prohibition of divorce and of the resultant invalidity of a second marriage while both parties to the first marriage are still living, is too well known to be ignored by a convert. She must therefore be considered in bad faith, and so her reception of baptism in her present frame of mind would be sacrilegious.2

This suggests the answer to the other question, whether a priest could lawfully receive her into the Church and baptize her. Since reception of baptism by her in her present condition would be sacrilegious, it would likewise be a sacrilege for the priest to confer baptism. This phase of the question is not treated by moralists when discussing baptism, for the reason that it is quite exceptional. But the same rules, relatively speaking, must per se be applied here as in refusing absolution to a penitent who may have made a complete confession but lacks the firm purpose of amendment.3

It is the second priest’s solution that is correct. The baptism of Mrs. B., as far as the requirements on her part are concerned, would be valid but unlawful. Pastoral prudence, however, will bid the pastor not to be brusque in rejecting her requests, but to be forbearing in order to preserve the spark of faith so that, if a change of conditions permits it, he can baptize and receive her into the Church with good conscience. Moreover, if the circuмstances are favorable, he may be able to persuade this woman and the man with whom she is living to separate, or, if there is no danger of continued sin and of scandal, to live as brother and sister. Then he could lawfully admit her to baptism at once.



1    S. C. S. Off., 1 August, 1860—C. I. C. Fontes, n. 963. Cf. Cappello, De Sacramentis, Turin, 1921, I, n. 13.
2    Cappello, of. cit., I, n. 88, 3.
3    Cappello, of. cit., I, n. 70-76. In an extraordinary case a priest fully cognizant of the lack of a firm purpose of amendment on the part of a baptizand would nevertheless   
      be obliged to comply with the request for baptism, viz. if on the one hand the fact of the baptizand’s living in an adulterous union were entirely unknown to the people
      because the bond of the preéxisting marriage was concealed and on the other the refusal to baptize such a one would betray the actual conditions. Cf. Canon 855, § 2.

The American Ecclesiastical Review 1929-09: Vol 81 Iss 3

Pages 306 to 308

https://archive.org/details/sim_american-ecclesiastical-review_1929-09_81_3/page/306/mode/2up




BAPTISM OF A PERSON LIVING IN SIN.



Question

Mrs. B. is invalidly married to a Catholic. The marriage cannot be revalidated owing to the fact that the husband’s first wife is still living. Mrs. B. is well instructed in the Catholic religion and makes open profession of it as far as possible. She desires to be baptized, but her pastor refuses on the ground that she is living in sin and intends to so continue, which constitutes an obstacle to the liceity and validity of the sacrament. Another priest advises him that the sacrament is valid under the circuмstances, but illicit. A third maintains that it is both licit and valid. Which is the correct solution?


Response

It is difficult to understand what reason the pastor has for holding that baptism in this case would be invalid. Probably he confuses the unworthy reception of the sacrament with its invalid reception. Even though received unworthily, the baptism can nevertheless be valid. If only the dispositions of Mrs. B. are considered, that would be verified in the present instance. For Mrs. B. has a very positive intention of receiving baptism in the Catholic Church. On her part therefore nothing prevents the valid reception of that sacrament.1

Her reception of baptism, however, would be unworthy. Worthy reception of baptism by an adult requires that he have at least attrition for his personal sins. Now Mrs. B.’s attrition is insufficient and insincere, since it lacks a necessary complement, namely, a firm purpose of amendment, for she is determined to persevere in her adulterous union. Hence her reception of baptism, while valid, would be unworthy. Far from producing the new man in Christ in her, it would burden her soul with the added guilt of sacrilege.

It were folly here to suggest good faith, seeing that with her acceptance of the Catholic faith she must accept the teaching of the indissolubility of marriage and thus recognize her own sinful state. Even if she were to assert her conviction that her present state is not wrong, she could not be believed; for the Catholic doctrine of the indissolublity of marriage, of the prohibition of divorce and of the resultant invalidity of a second marriage while both parties to the first marriage are still living, is too well known to be ignored by a convert. She must therefore be considered in bad faith, and so her reception of baptism in her present frame of mind would be sacrilegious.2

This suggests the answer to the other question, whether a priest could lawfully receive her into the Church and baptize her. Since reception of baptism by her in her present condition would be sacrilegious, it would likewise be a sacrilege for the priest to confer baptism. This phase of the question is not treated by moralists when discussing baptism, for the reason that it is quite exceptional. But the same rules, relatively speaking, must per se be applied here as in refusing absolution to a penitent who may have made a complete confession but lacks the firm purpose of amendment.3

It is the second priest’s solution that is correct. The baptism of Mrs. B., as far as the requirements on her part are concerned, would be valid but unlawful. Pastoral prudence, however, will bid the pastor not to be brusque in rejecting her requests, but to be forbearing in order to preserve the spark of faith so that, if a change of conditions permits it, he can baptize and receive her into the Church with good conscience. Moreover, if the circuмstances are favorable, he may be able to persuade this woman and the man with whom she is living to separate, or, if there is no danger of continued sin and of scandal, to live as brother and sister. Then he could lawfully admit her to baptism at once.



1    S. C. S. Off., 1 August, 1860—C. I. C. Fontes, n. 963. Cf. Cappello, De Sacramentis, Turin, 1921, I, n. 13.
2    Cappello, of. cit., I, n. 88, 3.
3    Cappello, of. cit., I, n. 70-76. In an extraordinary case a priest fully cognizant of the lack of a firm purpose of amendment on the part of a baptizand would nevertheless   
      be obliged to comply with the request for baptism, viz. if on the one hand the fact of the baptizand’s living in an adulterous union were entirely unknown to the people
      because the bond of the preéxisting marriage was concealed and on the other the refusal to baptize such a one would betray the actual conditions. Cf. Canon 855, § 2.

Of course! It would be valid but illicit. So, according to Catholic discipline they *CAN’T* do it. Read the part of your quote that I highlighted in red.


Thanks for this AER article since it confirms what I said above:

“All of them must give up their sinful ways and repent before they are baptized. An adulterer who plans on continuing in his adultery can’t be baptized. A Tranny who continues living an immoral life believing that he can change his sex, can’t be baptized. This is all supposing that they are wanting to be validly and licitly baptized in the Church.”

We're talking past one another.

We agree on the same principle, it would be valid, but unlawful.

Technically, it CAN be done, because truly the words can be pronounced, and the water poured, but it would be unlawful.

Yes, I agree that it can be done, but you first called me out for using the word “can’t”. I assumed you understood that I predicated my post on the notion that most people on this traditional Catholic forum understood the doctrine that unrepentant sinners *can’t* (lawfully) receive the sacraments. 

You were trying to pick a fight for no reason. 

I just saw this at rense.com.  I'm guessing that's Bishop Williamson in the back there?