AmericanPapist Comments
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/2766...7151/?
GT1=43001
man caught stealing Body of Christ during Mass
Well isn't this grand, the cow is out of the barn (or should I say the fox is in the hen house) and now the Bishops are going to start getting serious about protecting the unborn???
Where were the MAJORITY of Bishops when the "Catholic" elected officials were voting for expanded abortion? Where will the MAJORITY of Bishops be when these same "Catholic" elected officials vote to pass the FOCA??
Lead us Shepherds of the Church! Worry not about tax exemptions and hard feelings - save our unborn brethern!!
Ok, sorry. I had to rant a little. Frustrated with the election, its aftermath and the lack of leadership shown by our Bishops.
Thsi is wonderful news!
But I wonder - will they eventually find a way to baptize babies still in the womb?
Imagine if they were able to baptize babies in the womb before an abortion. That might be the final starw to convince the mother not to go ahead.
Liz - that's a heck of a story! Major props to the 82 year-old who was holding the guy down. And I'm glad to see that he was arrested and charged. I'm glad to see that parish has a proper sense of the sanctity of the Eucharist.
You gotta be able to touch the baby to baptize him. So unless you're a surgeon, or an ob-gyn/midwife with long reach, it's not gonna happen.
(And in fact, I believe there's some sort of discouragement or ban of baptizing babies that are in reach, but still in the womb. Ya gotta be born before you can be born again, is probably the reasoning. Unless there was some historical problem with people accidentally killing babies and mothers by being too enthusiastic to get the babies baptized on their way out....)
Bumblet-- I mean Gumbleton!
Using Thomas' default position of charity (and I mean that sincerely, not snarkily) I'll opine an answer to his last question: given that all the bishops signed on to the Spanish language version, and only one did not sign on to the English version, my "guess" is that it is not the resolution's object that gained the nay vote, but something within the actual language/"translation" of the rite with which a bishop disagreed. It will be interesting to see the matter and form of the blessing, and if there is any particular difference between the two languages.
[I know, I know ;-)...one could quibble with a bishop quibbling over language, but we've seen how important language is...]
"You gotta be able to touch the baby to baptize him."
Ummm, no you don't.
As an initial side note, in order to baptize, the water has to flow over (not just touch) the infant. In this case it's technically possible to baptize a child still in the womb if you find a way (and there isn't probable hope that the child can be brought forth and then baptized), though the child would have to be re-baptized conditionally after birth.
Does anyone know where this blessing could be found, or would it have to be released and take time to circulate? I'm curious, because my wife is due with our first child in December and I thought it'd be cool to have the child blessed in the womb, if it's possible. :)
Okay, so the _water_ has to be able to flow over the baby, but the human baptizing him doesn't have to be able to touch him. Well, I guess that makes sense....
Man, sometimes I think they didn't teach me anything in parochial school or CCD. And then I realize how many people learned even less from their parochial school. :(
Commenting by HaloScan
