Argentine president becomes godmother to lesbian couple's child


President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, who has legalized same-sex marriage in the staunchly Catholic Argentina, is now the godmother of Umma Azul, whose parents approached the leader because of her strong support of gay rights.

also here as well:

It has been said in other threads that the Code of Canon Law, states 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.”

When I see a photo of the lesbians kissing each other can we honestly say that the child be brought up in the Catholic religion?


One of the women already said, before the baptism I believe, that they would allow the girl to decide her own religious beliefs, basically.

Seems a fiasco to me. And if they didn’t want it to be a fiasco then they wouldn’t have talked about it, would they? It seems to me they are just attention seekers looking for strategic political gains. Although I do not, in saying that, imply that the baptism was invalid or something.

Regarding the baptism, this is an objectively good thing, although I am not sure I can make any positive statements about the women or the President.


For the record, there was also some sort of big deal about crime down there in the past few days. Only saw the headline.


What’s the priest/bishop down there thinking?


If one of the mothers is Catholic, then I’d say there is a “founded hope” that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion.



How so? If they’re not in a living situation acceptable to the Catholic Church I cannot see that as a remote possibility.


To me, there is reason to suspect that the Sacrament may have been illicit. It requires three things, matter, form and intention.

Now there was obviously matter and form. The child wasn’t dunked with slime while the priest sang Bollywood tunes. There was water and the invocation of the Most Holy Trinity.

The problem is that there was a very doubtful intention, at least to me. It’s dubious that a couple living in sin in a union that, regardless of whatever legal circumlocution has them think, will never be solemnized in the Church, could raise a child with Catholic morals and the faith which they probably don’t believe that well.

One of the women already said, before the baptism I believe, that they would allow the girl to decide her own religious beliefs, basically

So, was there any point to the child being baptized save for some political facade? Now, it all seems like a ruse to make the Church look like it’s pandering to things like this. Sigh.


Because. If one of them is Catholic and goes so far as to want her baby baptized in the church, there is more than a remote possibility she intends for the child to continue with church rituals and intends to take the child to church and/or teach them about the Catholic faith.
She must have some kinship with the faith, else she wouldn’t bother going thru with the baptism.

Does the church refuse to baptize any child whose parents are imperfect? Or are not in the ideal “living situation acceptable to the Catholic church”?
If so, they would be turning away a lot of babies.



Well hang on, you have to ask yourself - is leading a lifestyle wholly acceptable to the Church something that every Catholic is doing? I think it is certainly not.

I hope this baby will be brought up in the faith, and that their soul will nurtured and cared for.


Can you differentiate between people who are sinners (all of us) versus those who have no intention of obeying what the Church teaches?


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit