The baptism of baby Umma Azul, the daughter of one member of a lesbian "couple" civilly "married" in Argentina took place yesterday in the Cathedral of Córdoba (previous post on the matter here). The President of the Argentine Republic, Mrs. Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, was not present, but sent some gifts by way of a representative.
On the previous day, the Archbishop of Córdoba, Carlos Ñáñez, had said that the ladies finally were not going to be confirmed, but that the baptism would happen since it was "the right of the child," and that this whole problem had been caused by the "manipulation of the media". He also said he had informed Cardinal Cañizares Llovera, Prefect for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, so that the Holy See was kept "informed" of the situation (source: Infocatólica).
Two points: First, as a matter of fact, the media would not even be aware of the baptism if the couple had not gone to all lengths to make this a widely publicized event. Second, it is certainly not simply a reason of being a "right" of the child - otherwise, the Church would have the obligation to baptize all babies, irrespective of any other circumstances, including forcibly, in order to ensure the salvation of the child before the age of reason... Baptism entails grave obligations for Catholics, and is neither a mere social event, nor a... "Pelagian" superstition... The "mothers" themselves told the press that, "we want to have her baptized, but afterwards the baby will be able to do whatever she is inclined to do, and follow her own path." Which is why, as we recalled in the first post, bringing with it the Tradition and Magisterium of the Church, the 1983 Code of Canon Law is quite clear:
Can. 868 §1. For an infant to be baptized licitly:1/ the parents or at least one of them or the person who legitimately takes their place must consent;2/ 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.
Is there such "founded hope"? Or was it merely a propaganda piece for the advance of the Catholic recognition of homosexual "marriage", in which the poor baby is used as a mere instrument, a Sacrament is used to make a point, and a Holy Place of Worship is used for homosexual agitprop? You tell us, when you see this iconic image of the event (graphic image, minors please do not click.)