Trying to understand why Church allows baptism for children raised by gay couples


Of course, it’s not the child’s fault if his parents are not practicing the Faith.

Still, it’s hard to see how there can be a founded hope that the child will be raised Catholic in some family situations. It’s not impossible, though. I know of one couple who not only never married but were not even living together when the father decided he wanted to children baptized. The mother, who lived nearby, was indifferent to the matter, but went along to please the father. Neither of them went to Mass. Still, a local priest consented too the baptism. I am not sure that the children will ever be raised in the Faith.


I have run Baptism classes at two different churches with my husband and it has not come up with a homsexual couple but most of the priests and deacons I know in the case of a heterosexual cohabiting couple will Baptize a baby if one parent or grandparent agrees to see to the child’s faith life because what the parents do is not the child’s fault. How is this different?


This is my personal opinion, but I think that for the sake of the child, it should be allowed. One because the Church says so but also because upon personal examination of scripture and ancient practice there are a couple of things that we can’t forget.

I think that just because Adam and Eve explicitly disobeyed the Word of God, does not disqualify you and I from being baptized. Also, Acts 2: “[In a child’s case] be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.” Our Lord Jesus calls kids to come to him. He ordered all nations to be baptized. I highly frown upon the choices of the adoptive parents, but the kid did not have the active choice to be adopted in a same sex union… The kid must receive the Holy Spirit and it is your and my job to kindle that flame through prayer for every kid in this situation with the hopes that they get called to the true mission of The Lord.

Having said that, I think I’m fine with in-church baptism of the child provided that the two “guardians” are not there together, just one, or at all… Also, please check with a priest, but the extraordinary official for baptism can be any lay person, including non-catholics. The head must be washed and the proper words must be spoken.

Lord have mercy on us for putting kids in this situation…


I think there is no reason a child should be punished for the sins of his parents. Plenty of children of unmarried, cohabiting, contraception-using couples are allowed to be baptized. I see no difference. The “parents” make a promise to bring the child up in the faith. If they fail to keep this promise, that is on them, not the child. Baptism involves an outpouring of grace, and what a child in a situation like that needs is grace. (The “parents” need it too. We all do.) Jesus said “let the little children come to me”. Not “the children of practicing Catholic parents only”.


Yes. But the fact remains that the child is a baptized Catholic and has responsibilities as a member of the Church. If the parents do not raise him or her in the Faith, one ends up with a non-practicing Catholic.


We as Catholics observe the baptism of any Christian as long as it was done with water and the formula is correct even when the minister was not a priest. I would not say “to be baptized Catholic” as that might not make much sense. In fact, the term “Catholic baptism” would be akin to “universal baptism” and in this context, baptism is for anyone and everyone.


The probably shouldn’t be either.
Unless the guardians have a good intention, but that is logically inconsistent.


Yes. Everyone who is validly baptized is incorporated into Christ and into his Church. As such, they have obligations to follow the gospel and the teachings of Christ and his Church.


Isn’t it also possibly the case that although the gay couple are opposing Church rules by living together, they may be practicing Catholics in other areas of their faith? In other words, I don’t think being in a gay relationship automatically means one is defiant of all or most Church teaching.


I have met a couple like this. In fact they helped lead me to the faith. It pains me to see that their children may be punished for this.


It doesn’t really make sense for that to happen, but there probably is some like that. But such an example might teach them to be Cafeteria Catholics if the guardians aren’t ones themselves.


On the other hand, the couple may be more than cafeteria Catholics except for their sexual relationship. Such couples do exist, and not only in Catholicism.


If that is the case then it would most likely be fine to do so.


Wouldn’t it be better to welcome them to the fullness of the church? I would rather they be there in sin than not at all.


I definitely believe that homosexualism by itself does not disqualify people from the Catholic church or the ultimate question of salvation. However, their choice of living together and pursuing a romantic relationship is strictly forbidden in the bible. I guess that the added requirement for a gay saint in the future HAS to include and highlight his/her celibacy…


Depends on the scenario, in general, it could just mean having the ceremony done and nothing else after that. Sin isn’t the problem, but having sin does show a lack of commitment when there is no remorse or desire for repentance. Baptism is a huge obligation and it should be treated seriously. Being in the Church doesn’t actually do anything if there is no action.


We already have saints that are suspected of having been gay and celibate.


Baptism is mainly about the child, not the parents. The spiritual benefit is for the child, so I would trust the priest’s judgement.


Except it’s not just like heterosexual couples.

A heteroexual couple in an irregular situation may be allowed to marry if they obtain an anullment.

A gay couple cannot ever realise their union in the Church.


Revisionist nonsense.

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