TheBlaze posted a story earlier this week about two gay dads who claim that a church agreed to baptize their child and then backed out at the last minute.
The couple, Rich and Eric McCaffrey, brought their child to Cathedral Church of St. Luke in Orlando, Florida, to give their son a “spiritual foundation” and they believed the Episcopal Church would agree to do the baptism.
While the dean of the church agreed, three days before the ceremony the dean told the fathers that some congregants disagreed with the baptism, and they wouldn’t be able to perform the ceremony, which left the couple heartbroken.
Here's what some readers of TheBlaze had to say about the issue:
So in short…the unrepentant sinners want to bask in their unrepentant sin and flaunt it in a church.
This whole thing is nothing but more theater and play acting by homosexuals attempting to make their abnormal state of being “normal.” An adult can be baptized too. "Young Jack” can choose as an adult if he wants to be part of the church. But a holy sacrament is not what this is about. This is about theater and performance. The homosexual pair want to use the child they bought using a third party’s services as an accessory — an accoutrement to attempt to validate their lifestyle for themselves and the viewers.
Of course, being an Episcopal “church” I would say it will cave to the demands of the homosexuals as it’s been doing for a few years now. This was predicted in the Bible that aspects of the church would fall into a state of apostasy.
I’m Catholic and according to my church being baptized is what makes you a Christian. That and accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour. Obviously a child is unable to accept Jesus at that age, so baptism is what makes them a Christian.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say you should not baptize a sinner, nor should you not baptize the child of a sinner. This pastor is wrong because whether or not the parents are gay — or whether or not you believe being gay is a sin — is irrelevant. My church will baptize gay people, they just won’t marry them. God does not turn anyone away.
I don’t really see why they wouldn’t baptize the BABY because of the sins of the baby’s caretakers. I’m assuming that they are legal guardians. Neither man is mentioned as the biological father of the child.
Are you going to deny that a child be baptized because the child’s legal guardians are adulterers or unwed? Seems stupid to punish the child because he has crappy guardians.
The problem is, people shopping churches to find one that fits THEIR lifestyle. The church belongs to Jesus. If you have a problem with the church, take it up with Jesus.
Here’s a good one for gay people — go start your own church. It’s obvious that the Bible teaches that it's wrong and it seems all you want to do is cause conflict.
It's totally hypocritical to ask for your kid to be baptized when you are committing a sin. I think gays are doing things like this as hit jobs so they can get their cause in the media and sue.
(1) A “spiritual foundation” cannot be built upon a bedrock of sin.
(2) Baptizing a baby does not make that baby a “Christian.” That comes only by a willful, knowledgeable acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord, of which a young child is incapable. Child “dedication” pronounces the desire to raise a child according to Christian teachings.
My concern here is not infant baptism – I disagree with the practice, but if that is a tenant of the Episcopal church, that’s their call.
My concern is not the same-sex union – again I disagree, but if the church has decided to embrace it, that’s up to them.
I’m not even concerned with the flip-flop on the baptism – again, the church has the right to determine to whom it will extend their sacraments, as well as the right to change its mind.
My concern is the notion that this might be used as a “cause celebre” to use the power of the state to impose “fairness” on church doctrines and practices. If a church wants to withhold ANY sacrament from ANY person, it should be the privilege of that church to do so, and the state should have no say.
Meanwhile there is something hypocritical about shopping around for a church that matches your chosen lifestyle. Wouldn’t it make more sense to seek God’s truth, receive the promised witness that it is truth and then conform your life to that truth rather than expecting God to change his truth to accommodate you?
Don’t need a church to have a relationship with God or Jesus. And you surely don’t want to associate yourself with any church that rejects a child.
The child has committed no sin. I don’t like the Episcopal Church and am frankly surprised at its decision here because it has come out in support of same-sex marriage.
Regardless of the church's stance on homosexuality, to punish a child for the sins of the parents is not in the tenets of Christianity.
Would Jesus deny the child’s heart because of the sins of those who raised him? For shame. Even if the dads were Satan worshipers, Jesus would still offer salvation to the child.
If all they cared about was their child’s “salvation,” when this hit the fan, they could have asked for a nice, quiet, private baptism with just the minister. But they wanted the big public spectacle, which fortunately the real Christians in the congregation had a problem with.
If the “fathers” have publicly declared their intention to continue to sin (by the very nature of their homosexual “marriage”), there is no reason to baptize the child they are raising. He can choose to be baptized when he is an adult.
We all sin. But the difference between real Christians and these homosexual men is that real Christians try not to sin and definitely don’t choose to live an inherently sinful lifestyle. It’s that constant effort to avoid sin — and to ask for God’s forgiveness when we do sin — that makes us Christians.
These men aren’t looking for a relationship with God. They are looking for a social club.
Sounds like the church got heat from anti-gay parishioners and wimped out. I don’t think churches should be forced to do services for gays, but if they say they’ll baptize a gay couple's baby, then they should follow through.
I see it as a grave sin to turn a child away from the grace of God. I really think this is NOT the thing to be doing when faced with such a situation.
I’m a Catholic: I don’t believe in gay marriage anymore than I believe in "gay confession," "gay communion" or "gay baptism." There is one sacrament for all, and each one has its doctrine. You meet those requirements or you do not receive the sacrament. It’s pretty simple.
I know all sins are supposed to be equal, but I really feel that turning a baby away from baptism – for any reason – is possibly the worst sin of all in God's eyes.
This is wrong. Whatever you feel about gays and the homosexual lifestyle, this is an innocent child. Ultimately, a baptism, even for someone as young as this child, is for the benefit of the baptized. Turning this child away is just wrong.
I don’t want the child to miss out on baptism. The child is innocent. But it will be difficult when the priest turns to everyone and says "do you agree to bring this child up in the practice of the faith?" They obviously know that as gay fathers they are not practicing that portion of the faith — therefore how can they teach their child about it?
Follow Dave Urbanski (@DaveVUrbanski) on Twitter