Yesterday I spent a lot of time working on an article regarding the baptism of the same-sex couple’s baby, little Umma Blue, in the Cordoba cathedral.
My working title was:
Cordoba Archbishop Decries Media Distortion Re. Baptism of Lesbians’ Baby
I was going to tell you about how the media has misrepresented the story, making it seem as though the Church is abandoning its constant teaching and really “getting with the times.” I wrote about the archbishop’s correction of several “factual errors” which had been widely reported by the secular press. I was just about to publish my “clarification.”
Then, I got up this morning and saw this photo from the Spanish-language La Voz, showing the young “mothers” kissing in the cathedral, surrounded by cameras:
…and I had a great ‘ah-hah’ moment. There really is a problem here!
Canon law stipulates (Canon 861) that
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.
But based on the first photo, I have no “founded hope” that this is anything but a publicity stunt. It appears that these ladies couldn’t wait to get out of the church before celebrating their lesbian love—and that they’re using the baptism as a photo-op for their cause. It’s painfully obvious that little Umma Blue will not be raised in a home where the Christian virtue of chastity will be encouraged, and where the sixth and ninth commandments will be respected and obeyed.
In the original post which I’d drafted, I quoted Archbishop Carlos Ñáñez, archbishop of Cordoba. The archbishop cited several factual errors which have been widely reported by the secular press:
- First, the archbishop said, he has not personally talked to these people.
- Secondly, he has not authorized the administration of the Sacrament of Confirmation for the two lesbian women.
- Third, they came to the archdiocese without ever talking with the archbishop, and they were referred to a parish where the mother and godparents had to meet the requirements for the preparation for Baptism. (Presumably, as in the United States, those preparations would include baptismal preparation classes.)
The archbishop added that he had discussed the case with Cardinal Antonio Cañizares, Prefect of the Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments; so the Holy See is already familiar with the unusual aspects of the case.
Perhaps His Excellency knows something which I do not know regarding the intent of the two “mothers.” From where I sit, though, it appears that the April 5 baptism was planned specifically to promote the inauspicious goal of legitimizing same-sex marriage in the Church.
I hope my fears are proven to be unfounded. Let us pray for little Umma Blue and for the women—that all will find true faith in Christ and His Church.
* * * * *
Deacon Greg Kandra, in his post on the baptism, cited both Canon Law and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which clearly define Church teaching regarding the requirements for baptism. Read that article here.