Priest refuses to baptize the child of a lesbian couple

[HoreTore]

Tiny article in the newspaper, so no linky....

Anyway, the story is; a lesbian couple went to get their son baptized in the norwegian state church, and the priest who was originally assigned to do it refused, because "god is against gays" and all that...

I don't really care what he did, but I'm very interested to know why he did it, because it honestly doesn't make sense to me. The parents are living in sin according to his views, that I understand. But why take it out on their innocent child? Baptism is the way to Christ, why does he want to deny someone christianity because their parents are sinners? Surely he should be concerned with saving the child, shouldn't he?

It just makes no sense to me. Could anyone here help me understand it?

[Ronin]

he obviously can´t see past his prejudice to the actual letter of the "sacred" book he supposedly defends.

Like you said, it would be logical that the priest would want to baptize the child, this child especially since it is exposed to "sin" in it´s own house, *sarcasm mode* this child needs protecting!


But to baptize this child would mean that it´s mothers, and their friends would attend....and they would bring TEH GAY with them!!!! We can´t have that.


Having said this the access to a religious ritual is not a right by law in most countries, so nothing else can be done except for everyone to recognize this guy as a douchenozel.

looking at the situation from a different standpoint, I also fail to understand why this couple wants their child to be the recipient of a blessing from an organization that views them as an abomination unto God.
This seems like an unhealthy relationship.

[Andres]

I also fail to understand why this couple wants their child to be the recipient of a blessing from an organization that views them as an abomination unto God.

My thoughts exactly.

If the priest doesn't want to baptise the child because of his religion/personal conviction, then the couple should accept that, instead of making a big fuss about it.

No one forbids them to start their own religion, e.g. an exact copy of the religion of the church in question minus the "no gays" thingy.

[Major Robert Dump]

What's funny is that he's a Catholic Priest, removed. BUT OH NO NOT LESBIANS!!!!

[Louis VI the Fat]

I also fail to understand why this couple wants their child to be the recipient of a blessing from an organization that views them as an abomination unto God.

I would normally agree. If an organisation considers me to be only on the lowest of the nine levels of Atlantean Enlightenment because I am not sexually attracted to bottlenose dolphins, then fine, I won't join. To each his own and whatever makes them happy and makes me happy and all that.


However, we are talking about a State Church here. The Norwegian head of state is always the head of this religion too. Such is the nature of hereditary monarchy, and of no separation of church and state.

It is therefore not merely a theological dispute, but a political one. The Norwegian government directly legislates and administers this church. So in effect, the Norwegian state discriminates against lesbians.

[Jolt]

[QUOTE=Major Robert Dump;2400376]see aabove postQUOTE]

removed in the interest of decorum

Don't add to a troll please. SF

[Hosakawa Tito]

Sowing the seeds of their own irrelevance.

[HoreTore]

My thoughts exactly.

If the priest doesn't want to baptise the child because of his religion/personal conviction, then the couple should accept that, instead of making a big fuss about it.

No one forbids them to start their own religion, e.g. an exact copy of the religion of the church in question minus the "no gays" thingy.

Ah, but here's the thing; he's employed by the church and therefore has to follow the churches teachings, not his own, or find himself a new church. Same goes for the lesbians. And the church stance on gays doesn't exists, so they're both welcome in the church. There are plenty of people in the church who accepts gays, so why shouldn't the lesbians consider themselves a part of it?

What's funny is that he's a Catholic Priest, removed, see above SF

Catholic? What? No, we're Lutherans up here....

And yes, we do have a state church here, because Labour doesn't want to give up power and the christians want money and a part of the national identity... I have good hopes we'll end the theocracy within the next decade though. The state church really is the worst option for everyone.

[Andres]

I would normally agree. If an organisation considers me to be only on the lowest of the nine levels of Atlantean Enlightenment because I am not sexually attracted to bottlenose dolphins, then fine, I won't join. To each his own and whatever makes them happy and makes me happy and all that.


However, we are talking about a State Church here. The Norwegian head of state is always the head of this religion too. Such is the nature of hereditary monarchy, and of no separation of church and state.

It is therefore not merely a theological dispute, but a political one. The Norwegian government directly legislates and administers this church. So in effect, the Norwegian state discriminates against lesbians.

Ah, I didn't know that.

Time for a strict seperation between Church and State, then.

Speaking of which, in Belgium state money is still being spent on religious institutions as well (I believe we have 6 "recognised" religions which get money from the state ).

[Louis VI the Fat]

Ah, I didn't know that.

Time for a strict seperation between Church and State, then.

Speaking of which, in Belgium state money is still being spent on religious institutions as well (I believe we have 6 "recognised" religions which get money from the state ).

Hmmm, funny. I thought Belgium was a mini-me in this regard, with full Laïcité.

This Wiki article is excellent.

It groups France, Turkey and the US together in a group of 'separation of church and state.
Belgium, Germany, Canada etc are grouped as 'secular states'.
The UK, the Nordic countries are 'state church' countries.

Then there are smaller groups, ranging from theocracies - the Vatican, Iran, Saudi Arabia; the atheist state of Cuba; and other constitutional arrangements.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Ah, I didn't know that.

Time for a strict seperation between Church and State, then.

Speaking of which, in Belgium state money is still being spent on religious institutions as well (I believe we have 6 "recognised" religions which get money from the state ).

I'd make an exception for any of those monasteries that brew Belgian beer. Westvleteren is a national treasure that must be preserved. Send in the Marines...

[Watchman]

What's funny is that he's a Catholic Priest...

Unlikely, as the Church of Norway is Lutheran.

AFAIK the current official stance on the topic here in Finland, where the issue also occasionally comes up due to those diehards in the Church that greatly embarass their colleagues and do a lot of damage to the outfit's street cred, is that the "customers" should find a priest with less retarded views. (Who aren't too hard to come by around here.)
It's not like the higher-ups can force the cranks to perform the rites, after all.

[Fragony]

Why seek what you can't have, church doesn't approve, so leave church instead of trying to change it. So you like women. So do I, but i am not making a point out of it whenever I can.

[HoreTore]

Why seek what you can't have, church doesn't approve, so leave church instead of trying to change it. So you like women. So do I, but i am not making a point out of it whenever I can.

The church actually approves, Frags. Or at least it doesn't disapprove.

Heck, there's a lot of homosexual priests in this church. And anyway, this isn't about the lesbians, they're not the ones needing a baptism, it's their child who is getting that. Oh, and he's still getting baptized, it's just that the priest in question isn't the one who will be performing the ceremony. And this thread is about trying to figure out just why he didn't want to perform it, as I doubt a baby can be called a sinful homosexual....

[Idaho]

Religious people in irrational acts shocker! Hold the front page!

[Fragony]

The church actually approves, Frags. Or at least it doesn't disapprove.

Heck, there's a lot of homosexual priests in this church. And anyway, this isn't about the lesbians, they're not the ones needing a baptism, it's their child who is getting that. Oh, and he's still getting baptized, it's just that the priest in question isn't the one who will be performing the ceremony. And this thread is about trying to figure out just why he didn't want to perform it, as I doubt a baby can be called a sinful homosexual....

It is silly imho but I am not going to enforce they can have it, if they can keep their distance so will I.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Tiny article in the newspaper, so no linky....

Anyway, the story is; a lesbian couple went to get their son baptized in the norwegian state church, and the priest who was originally assigned to do it refused, because "god is against gays" and all that...

I don't really care what he did, but I'm very interested to know why he did it, because it honestly doesn't make sense to me. The parents are living in sin according to his views, that I understand. But why take it out on their innocent child? Baptism is the way to Christ, why does he want to deny someone christianity because their parents are sinners? Surely he should be concerned with saving the child, shouldn't he?

It just makes no sense to me. Could anyone here help me understand it?

This is clearly a breach of his sacred duty (seriously, I mean that). It doesn't make sense.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What's funny is that he's a Catholic Priest, removed, see above SF

Religious people in irrational acts shocker! Hold the front page!

Would anyone else like to paint with an offensively broad brush?

...More like a Wagner. SF

[ajaxfetish]

Yeah, makes no sense at all. Does he think the offspring of gay parents are necessarily gay? Methinks this guy needs to go back to priest school.

Ajax

[Thermal]

Condemning a child because he doesn't agree with its parents is completely unfair. Besides, I'm not big on the bible but I never thought it explicitly said on parable blah de blah 'THOU HOMOSEXUAL WILL BE IN HELLS OF DAMNATION FOR MANY A ETERNITY... +1' I think priests are happy to go off there own rules as much as God's besides, theirs a lot of money in being a priest, religion doesn't matter to some of them.

[HoreTore]

This is clearly a breach of his sacred duty (seriously, I mean that). It doesn't make sense.

....and that would beg the question; why is he permitted to behave like this by his superiors?

besides, theirs a lot of money in being a priest, religion doesn't matter to some of them.

The priest in question is employed by the state. Now, you can say a lot about the state, but that they pay high wages ain't one of 'em. A priest here is just middle class, nothing more than any other 4-year(I think?) university degree would get you, his financial situation would be the same as a teacher or an engineer with a bachelor, above and industrial worker but way below a doctor or marketing guy, for example.

[Thermal]

....and that would beg the question; why is he permitted to behave like this by his superiors?



The priest in question is employed by the state. Now, you can say a lot about the state, but that they pay high wages ain't one of 'em. A priest here is just middle class, nothing more than any other 4-year(I think?) university degree would get you, his financial situation would be the same as a teacher or an engineer with a bachelor, above and industrial worker but way below a doctor or marketing guy, for example.

Ok.... was just a general statement really.

I think the priest probably goes against God more than the lesbians , with his own actions by refusing to bless a child & allow it to go to hell, supposedly.

[Samurai Waki]

Lutherans being openly accepting of homosexuality is very new, so obviously there are still going to be dissenters. They should have found a priest that subscribed to the new school of thought... still can actually, it's rather simple.

[HoreTore]

Lutherans being openly accepting of homosexuality is very new, so obviously there are still going to be dissenters. They should have found a priest that subscribed to the new school of thought... still can actually, it's rather simple.

They did, as I said in the opening post...alright maybe not so clearly, but still....

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

....and that would beg the question; why is he permitted to behave like this by his superiors?

Most likely because Protestant denominations aren't big on the defrocking and excomunication. I prefer it that way, persoanlly, it's better overall.

The priest in question is employed by the state. Now, you can say a lot about the state, but that they pay high wages ain't one of 'em. A priest here is just middle class, nothing more than any other 4-year(I think?) university degree would get you, his financial situation would be the same as a teacher or an engineer with a bachelor, above and industrial worker but way below a doctor or marketing guy, for example.

In the UK, priests keep the revenues from the marrigae, baptisms, etc. they perform.

[rvg]

A priest refusing a sacrament to an innocent child deserves a place in hell.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Having a state church doesn't mean Norway is a theocracy or anything like it, though I disagree with the concept of having a state religion. Either way, the priest is clearly out of line with Christianity. He should be falling all over himself to baptize that child, especially because baptisms are going down, and therefore he is doing a disservice to himself, the Church, and to the child. Not good, and not in keeping with the ideals of Christianity.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Having a state church doesn't mean Norway is a theocracy or anything like it, though I disagree with the concept of having a state religion. Either way, the priest is clearly out of line with Christianity. He should be falling all over himself to baptize that child, especially because baptisms are going down, and therefore he is doing a disservice to himself, the Church, and to the child. Not good, and not in keeping with the ideals of Christianity.

Constitutionally, the Nordic monarchies in which we must include the UK here) are Theocracies; the fact that they are very relaxed about it is irrelevant and also a recent development.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Constitutionally, the Nordic monarchies in which we must include the UK here) are Theocracies; the fact that they are very relaxed about it is irrelevant and also a recent development.

Wiki:

Theocracy should be distinguished from other secular forms of government that have a state religion, or are merely influenced by theological or moral concepts, and monarchies held "By the Grace of God".

[HoreTore]

Wiki:

Until 2005, our Prime Minister was a priest....