Angry in the Great White North

From the Ottawa Citizen (reprinted at the Free Republic):

The Catholic church will not baptize the child of a same-sex couple if both parents want to sign the certificate of baptism, the Conference of Catholic Bishops said yesterday.

The church's position emerged after independent Senator Marcel Prud'homme took issue with testimony from Marc Cardinal Ouellet on Wednesday at Senate committee hearings into the same-sex marriage bill.

His statement left the impression with several senators and observers that Catholic church rules would not allow the baptism of children of same-sex couples, even if the marriage bill passes.

Mr. Prud'homme, a Catholic, said the church should not be free to refuse baptism under any circumstance. "It's a question of rules, but I consider a baby a gift of God," he said in an interview.

"If two mothers or two fathers come to baptize a baby, how can you turn down baptism? To me it's insane. Even if they have to change the ruling of the baptism certificate. Who tells me that two mothers or two fathers cannot raise the child in the Catholic faith?"

Here it is again -- regalism. The notion that the State has precedence over the Church. The Senator asks, "Who tells me that two mothers or two fathers cannot raise the child in the Catholic faith?"

The answer is the Church tells you, and that is that. The question here of course is that how can parents who by their very relationship are committing an ongoing sin commit to raising a child true to the faith. Are they going to tell the child that what they are doing is wrong and that they risk eternal damnation for their unrepentant behaviour? I doubt it. For that reason, homosexual couples cannot be guarantors of a child's upbringing. A heterosexual couple can make that promise on behalf of the child, but then the Church would have reason to question just how exactly that would work given the child would be living with gay parents.

The Cardinal is right in saying this is a mess, and that to be true to the faith, such a baptism, involving the gay parents, cannot be sanctioned.

Now some parish priests are baptizing children, generally with the support of their bishops, figuring that the baptism of the child is more important. They might be right. The Cardinal is rightly worried, I think, that this might be seen as tacit approval of same-sex relationships, which in turn could be used against the Church in later fights.

But the fact that the Senator made a comment to the effect that "should not be free to refuse baptism under any circumstance". Was he speaking as a citizen, as a Catholic, or as a Senator? The last is what worries me. What other things does the Senator think the Church should or should not be allowed to do? What laws should be in placed to compel compliance? What punishment will be meted out if the Church refuses to comply?