Lesbian couple in argentina have their baby baptized


My apologies if this topic has already been discussed. (Couldn’t find thread on this topic).

I’m torn on this one. On one hand the baby is innocent and has a spiritual right to be baptized. But, will the child be raised catholic? The child’s godparent must be in good standing in the Catholic church in order to be a godparent. The lesbian couple surely is not.


Canon law allows for delaying baptism if there’s evidence the child won’t be raised Catholic, but not denying it completely. In the case of the lesbian couple, there might not even be reason enough to delay it. Delays are usually used to give parents the opportunity to fix their irregular marriage situation. E.g., they’re Catholics who only got a civil marriage. But that’s not even possible with the lesbian couple.


I read that the couple is being confirmed into the church as well.

I also read that the president of Argentina will be the godparent.

Just google : you’ll find links.


It’s not the Baby’s fault that the parents are living in sin. To me, the question regarding Baptizing the baby is not different than an unmarried hetrosexual couple living togehter and wanting to baptize their baby.

If it looks like the child will be raised Catholic, then let’s Baptize that baby. Let’s not punsh the baby for the sins of the parents.

God Bless.


You do realize that Baptism depends on the practiced faith of the parents, right? As such, the Baptism should be delayed until there is reasonable faith that the child will be raised authentically Catholic (i.e. not supporting same-sex “marriage”, whether it be religious or civil).

The Church also teaches that civil marriages between members of the same sex are evil and mortally sinful, as is supporting them.


What do you all think about the married couple being confirmed in the church?


But he won’t be raised Catholic. His “parents” are active lesbians.


But Rorate Caeli cited a recent article which stated that the women in fact were not (and I guess will not) be Confirmed, and one of them said that they will let “their” daughter (?) do her own thing as far as religion, more or less. This is not RC’s editorializing but rather quotes they got.


Thanks. The last that I had read on RC was that they were to be confirmed, but I am reading the article that you speak of right now.


Sorry, I meant “she” and “her” here, not “he” and “his”. :doh2:


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.



No, baptism does not depend on the practiced faith of the parents. The practiced faith of the parents can shed light on whether or not the child will be raised Catholic. Should we deny baptism to the children of Catholics who disagree with the Church on contraception? Should we forever deny baptism to the children of divorced Catholics who haven’t gotten annulments?


Where did you get the idea that such a postponement is forever?


If it didn’t, the Church would have the obligation and duty to baptize all babies, regardless of background, so that they could be saved should they die before the age of reason. No, canon law (868) clearly teaches that only infants who will be raised fully Catholic may be baptized.


So does that mean that someone who practices the Hindu religion can have their baby baptised in the Catholic Church, but raise the baby in the Hindu faith?


Well, until the child becomes an adult. That is JamesTheJust’s interpretation.


This is true, but the it doesn’t need to be the parents who instruct the child. If the parents are in a same sex marriage and have selected orthodox God Parents and plan to raise the child Catholic, then in THEORY the child could be baptized if the priest feels that there is “a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion.”

It doesn’t say “parents must be in good standings with the Church.” If it did, then children of divorced parent(s) without annulments could not be baptized either. I’m sure that many (NOT ALL) divorced & remarried (without annulment) parents are critical of Church teaching on that subject and might teach their child a heretical view regarding that specific teaching. Just like a child of a same-sex child would most likely be taught a heretical view regarding the Church’s teaching on SSM.

Homosexual acts, fornication, and adultery are all equally evil.

But if you are going to “punish” children because their parents are “bad Catholics” then you have to “punish” all children of “bad Catholics.”

The question is simply this “is there a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion” or is the child getting baptized for “good luck” or for some kind of “superstition”? Even if the child will be raised as a Cafeteria Catholic, it’s better than not being Baptized or growing up without the sacraments.

Just my two cents.

God Bless.


No, just until they reach the age of reason (7). That’s clear from reading canon law.


Baptism requires the consent of the parents. Canon law says baptism can be delayed if there is no hope of the child being raised Catholic.


No, but a Hindu couple could have their baby baptized in the Catholic Church if they show that they intend to raise him Catholic. E.g., send him off to live with Catholic relatives.

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