I think Aing has a tendency to take things too literally.
A lot of dead people, mostly famous ones, often have whole biographies written about them and historians speculate on all sorts of matters connected to the people they’re writing about, both public and private. That’s what historians do.
I read a biography not long ago of Richard the Lionheart, King of England and there is a discussion in the book about whether Richard was a homosexual. He was 41 when he died, he had no children, and didn’t spend much time with his wife, Berengaria of Navarre. His brother, King John, on the other hand, had five legitimate children with his wife and at least eight illegitimate ones that we know about (there were probably others that we don’t know about).
That sounds like a double standard on privacy.
As for Richard he might be one of those people that is inclined to celibacy and maybe infertile too.
I just laugh at revisionist homosexualist historians. They just want to advance the agenda and/or get published. And they’re a dime a dozen.
Is it true then that a certain portion of what Catholics are writing here is codswallop and should not be taken seriously?
Common sense should be employed when trying to interpret what they are trying to say.
What’s particularly vile is when so-called Biblical historians insist that King David was homosexual, or the Apostle Paul was homosexual…or even worse.
Would David having homosexual relations be more vile than committing adultery and intentionally making sure that the husband of the woman he was committing adultery with was killed?
No, but it its trying to push a narrative that doesn’t fit.
Exactly. I generally ignore such nonsensical comparisons.
David did penance for his sin and remained king. Not to mention generating a line of kings with Bathsheba culminating in the Blessed Mary ever Virgin and her spouse and protector, St. Joseph.
So God ultimately brought our greatest good out of the union of David and Bathsheba. No such good could have come from some hypothetical homosexual union; only sin, more sin, and death.
This issue came up in Argentina a few years ago. It went up to the Vatican. The Vatican allowed the baptism to go through with the stipulation that the child would have some other family member as the spiritual guide for the child rather than the parents.
Joining in late here.
This is what I was thinking, too.
Somebody could be a “sinner” but not encourage their children to commit the same sin.
A same-sex couple could say, “this is what we do, we’re Catholics and we know it’s a sin, but we don’t want you to do it.” The old “do as I say, not as I do.”
I’ve posted before about good ol’ Uncle Bob. He was a great man except that he had a tendency to drink to excess. Whether he went to hell for it is not my call, but I see the important thing as the fact that he didn’t encourage his kids to do it; in fact, he was quite strict with them. I can’t see anyone saying, “Bob, we can’t baptize your kids as Catholics because you’re a sinner.”
And that doesn’t work on children.
If I was a priest the couple would need to separate before I would agree to baptize the child.
A civilly married heterosexual couple would also need to separate or regularize their marriage before I would baptize their child.
Why? One of the things baptizing your child does is bind them to the marriage laws of the Church. I think that someone clearly unwilling to follow them themselves is a poor example for a child to follow.
That’s would be putting the sin of the father into the head of the son
And several years later, “Daddy, why aren’t we Catholic?”
“Because they don’t want you.”
Respectfully standing with the Church and ask why not??
That makes sense.
That’s a pretty general statement to make. In this case, it would work most of the time.
It might not work on a child who wants to commit the same sin at the time they are told not to, because their moral reasoning might only go as far as “dad does this so I can too”. But if they would only contemplate committing the same sin when they’re older, they can now reason that “dad did this but he lso told me not to, maybe there’s a good reason why I shouldn’t do it”
Also, the child will probably not grow up gay and therefore would have no interest in committing the same sin in the first place
In other words, making the child and his/her baptism a pawn for the priest to force the couple to split.
The likely result will be all three leaving the Church. If they stayed, and were encouraged to grow in their faith, they might come to a better understanding of their own sin and be able to grow closer to the Christian ideal.
Drive them out, and you have the sin of losing souls on your conscience.
Is it common sense to allow a married SS couple to baptize their children and promise to raise them as faithful practicing Catholics?
In a word, no. It would be illogical.