Counter "sign"

Here is my response to a Catholic blog on our local newspaper's site. She links to a story in the "Advocate" and states they are challenging the hypocrisy of the Church...


I am sort of surprised that you would link to the Advocate, but such is our world. What is worse than the link though, is the use of the word hypocrisy. Perhaps a bit of journalism would reveal that the Church is not denying them baptism, but rather the gay couple would be.

If you read a bit less slanted article on CWN you can see the actual words of the bishop. He was testifying before a committee regarding the new same-sex union law in Canada and said the following "If I take the example of the ceremony of baptism, according to our canon law, we cannot accept the signatures of two fathers or two mothers as parents of an infant. "

And later when the newspapers had twisted the bishop's statement, Bariteau clarified. "Canon 868 says, "For an infant to be baptized lawfully it is required... that there be a well-founded hope that the child will be brought up in the Catholic religion. If such hope is truly lacking, the baptism is, in accordance with the provisions of particular law, to be deferred and the parents advised of the reason for this."
Ouelett's statement to the committee partially reflects the fact that there is little well-founded hope that a baby brought into a homosexual home, which homosexual "parents" have no intention of altering their lifestyle, will be brought up in the Catholic religion, since homosexuality is so fundamentally contrary to Catholic teaching. The couple is demonstrating a public, persistent contempt for fundamental Catholic teaching by their relationship. "
(emphasis is mine)

Seems like some have an axe to grind and look for any quote they can twist to paint the Church as hateful.