Adoption vs Procreation

  • Thread starter Thread starter edarlitrix
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
orang said:
That is my comment, there has been no progress, so I need to explain the question so things are understood,

If the question was understood , and clearly shown , there would not be all these problems .
Click to expand...
I disagree - The question seems clear to me (and to you). Do you have an opinion as to the appropriate answer?
 
Rau said:
I disagree - The question seems clear to me (and to you). Do you have an opinion as to the appropriate answer?
Click to expand...
OP shows to be a Christian,

a) appropriate answer relative to Catholicism ?
b) appropriate answer relative to a believer who is Christian ?
c) appropriate answer to a Universal Christianity , ( spoken of by the Saints

so the question is incomplete.
 
Allegra said:
Catholics are not supposed to marry with the intention of never being open to life. There is nothing wrong about adopting children, and after children are adopted, Catholic parents may have a good reason to avoid a pregnancy for a time, but that is different from declaring from the get go that they refuse to have children.
Click to expand...
The intention of never being “open to life” is not expressed or implied in the scenario. Sex acts are, by definition, open to life so long as they are not interfered with. The couple in the scenario given could be contemplating NFP throughout marriage, or abstinence…

My only quibble with your post is the potential for misunderstanding of the term
“Open to life”.
 
orang said:
OP shows to be a Christian,

a) appropriate answer relative to Catholicism ?
b) appropriate answer relative to a believer who is Christian ?
c) appropriate answer to a Universal Christianity ? ( spoken of by the Saints or philosophy of Christianity.
Click to expand...
Appropriate answer for you, a declared catholic.
 
Rau said:
Appropriate answer for you, a declared catholic.
Click to expand...
off topic

an appropriate answer relative to myself as a declared Catholic, would be a topic about a Catholic -and the question, OP is a Christian, so the question wandered off topic.
 
orang said:
off topic

an appropriate answer relative to myself as a declared Catholic, would be a topic about a Catholic -and the question, OP is a Christian, so the question wandered off topic.
Click to expand...
LOL…:D…LOL

The lengths some people will go to to avoid expressing an opinion!
 
Rau said:
LOL…:D…LOL

The lengths some people will go to to avoid expressing an opinion!
Click to expand...
An appropriate answer for this matter needs to understand the individual , because it has to do with nurturing the soul in all . So comprehensions and philosophies in understandings would be important.
 
Rau said:
Or are you cringing at something else?
Click to expand...
I cringe when people imply that a validly married couple, open to life, clearly open to having children as demonstrated by their adopting other’s children, are considering to be sinning.
 
Rau said:
The intention of never being “open to life” is not expressed or implied in the scenario. Sex acts are, by definition, open to life so long as they are not interfered with. The couple in the scenario given could be contemplating NFP throughout marriage, or abstinence…

My only quibble with your post is the potential for misunderstanding of the term
“Open to life”.
Click to expand...
I could be wrong, but I don’t get the impression that abstinance (periodic or otherwise) is what the OP has in mind in that scenario. I expect the OP wants to know if adopting children excuses couples from being open to life in the marriage act. The answer to that is “no”, which I think we agree on. I think it is important to be clear, since the OP didn’t elaborate on that part of the scenario.
 
Rau said:
If the couple intend to avoid natural children for the entirety of their marriage, can they use NFP for their entire marriage, absent a serious reason to avoid natural children? I understand the answer is no.
Click to expand...
I believe you are correct.
TheWarriorMonk said:
The problem with discussions like this is that details matter.

The way this specific scenario is being played out is that the couple, open to life, is adopting children and raising a family, yet are sinning. I cringe at the thought.
Click to expand...
Open to life refers to the “mechanics” of the sexual act. A married couple can be generously open to adopting children and that is a VERY good thing. But it is not germane to whether the sexual acts are open to life.
Rau said:
The intention of never being “open to life” is not expressed or implied in the scenario. Sex acts are, by definition, open to life so long as they are not interfered with. The couple in the scenario given could be contemplating NFP throughout marriage, or abstinence…

My only quibble with your post is the potential for misunderstanding of the term
“Open to life”.
Click to expand...
True, but not really the issue with the OP’s scenario. The couple may or may not have an issue with being open to life. But a couple who intends to preclude procreation for the duration of their marriage is rejecting the gift of fecundity which naturally flows from marriage. Fecundity is part of the total giving that is expected in marriage. To purposely reject procreation would not, absent some serious reason, be a valid Catholic approach to marriage.
2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is “on the side of life,” teaches that “it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life.” “This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.”
Click to expand...
 
Corki said:
Open to life refers to the “mechanics” of the sexual act. A married couple can be generously open to adopting children and that is a VERY good thing. But it is not germane to whether the sexual acts are open to life.
Click to expand...
I’m well aware of that. Hence the reason I stated details matter. I suspect the thread will continue on about such specific details; e.g., “well, what if they’re practing NFP but have this intent…or do that…etc.”
 
TheWarriorMonk said:
There is no sin. Period.

However, as is usual in the hypothetical scenarios, the person’s raising the questions often have other things in mind not properly expressed.

There is no question, and I have addressed the OP’s post.
Click to expand...
You are being evasive. 🤷
 
Corki said:
… But a couple who intends to preclude procreation for the duration of their marriage is rejecting the gift of fecundity which naturally flows from marriage. Fecundity is part of the total giving that is expected in marriage. To purposely reject procreation would not, absent some serious reason, be a valid Catholic approach to marriage.
Click to expand...
This is my understanding also. Warrior takes another view, viz. that adopting children is an ok substitute for having one’s own.
 
Allegra said:
I could be wrong, but I don’t get the impression that abstinance (periodic or otherwise) is what the OP has in mind in that scenario. I expect the OP wants to know if adopting children excuses couples from being open to life in the marriage act. The answer to that is “no”, which I think we agree on. I think it is important to be clear, since the OP didn’t elaborate on that part of the scenario.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

Neither Adopting nor overpopulation excuse contraception (anymore than having some children would). Hard to believe this is the OP’s (hypothetical) intention, since the ‘ban’ on contraception is absolute.

Overpopulation may one day, conceivably, constitute a serious reason to use NFP. I can imagine this in a place where people are destitute and starving. The individual couple must assess the situation.

A couple may choose to forego sex in their lives, and thus have no children. A rare and special choice that is unlikely to be the OP’s (hypothetical) intention.
 
Rau said:
This is my understanding also. Warrior takes another view, viz. that adopting children is an ok substitute for having one’s own.
Click to expand...
I concur with the Church’s position: there is no difference between “natural” and adopted children. You obviously disagree, and are attempting to create an issue that does not exist.
 
TheWarriorMonk said:
I concur with the Church’s position: there is no difference between “natural” and adopted children. You obviously disagree, and are attempting to create an issue that does not exist.
Click to expand...
To my knowledge, the Church does not teach that adopting children is equivalent to having one’s own, in so far as the fruits and duties of marriage are concerned. To my understanding, it is not an alternative to the fecundity of marriage. See Corki’s post above.

Happy to discuss further, if you would:
  • point to Church teaching in support of your assertion that adopting children is equivalent to accepting one’s own
  • answer directly the questions I put to you.
 
Rau said:
Happy to discuss further, if you would:
Click to expand...
This adoptive parent is under no obligation to discuss the matter any further. Please don’t adopt; such children don’t need parents such as yourself that segregate them into different categories based on DNA.
 
TheWarriorMonk said:
This adoptive parent is under no obligation to discuss the matter any further. Please don’t adopt; such children don’t need parents such as yourself that segregate them into different categories based on DNA.
Click to expand...
Of course you are not - I invited discussion, I did not demand it!

A decision to adopt is a “standalone” good thing, but has no bearing on the elements of the scenario in debate.

The personal barb directed at me is unwarranted and unfortunate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top