Adoption vs Procreation

[orang]

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.

Yes, Corki answer is the Catholic answer as I understand as well. And agree with above in the context and Corki pointer, two different issues, adaption, and the teachings in the sacrament of Matrimony. It was a good post, read it this morning.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

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.

Please provide a reference to support your opinion, other your answer lies solely in the realm of personal opinion.

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.

The couple is practicing NFP, and thus is open to life. I will provide the references if you wish. Not relevant to the discussion at hand.

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.

Your are contradicting yourself by arguing that an act open to life is a rejection of fecundity. That’s nonsensical.

There are only two issues at "hand:

1. “Natural” versus adopted children. I can find no reference that they are not treated the same under Church law, though there are references indicating they are treated the same (Canon 1094). Furthermore, for the purpose of everything Church-related they are; i.e., my wife and I are treated as the parents of our adopted children, without question, on every Church record. Since every action and reference by the Church indicates there is no difference, and nobody has anything but personal opinion to dispute this, is it a non-issue: There is no difference in the treatment of adopted versus children, marriage or otherwise.
2. The only issue remaining pertains to the reason behind the use of NFP. Ultimately the reasoning is not overpopulation, but rather adopting versus having children “naturally.” It’s going to be hard to argue that there is something inherently sinful about a couple adopting rather that having children “naturally,” while at the same time the couple is open to life, and also understanding there is no requirement to have sex or children naturally.

IMHO, there is no sin in the latter. And you will not find any authoritative reference for supporting that it is. Maybe the opinion of a theologian buried in the tome of some dusky library, but that’s it.

 

[OraLabora]

This is my understanding also. Warrior takes another view, viz. that adopting children is an ok substitute for having one’s own.

It can be. It depends on circumstances.

My parents married later in life; my father was a widower when he met my mother who was unmarried. When they married, my father was 43 and my mother 37 (side note, my father was Anglican, but they married-in 1955-with dispensation and my father agreed the children would be raised Catholic).

Nature followed its course and they had their first child in 1956, a boy. He died of a rare childhood cancer (neuroblastoma) a little over two years later. By then my mother was 40 and my father 46. I would assume they thought they were too old to have another child naturally; 40+, the risks for the mother and child go up; I remember my late mother telling me (when I was an adult) that her doctor advised adoption instead of having another child naturally. So my parents adopted a 6-week old baby, as it turned out, myself, instead of having another child naturally.

These hypothetical threads are just that, hypothetical. Real life, there are numerous different circumstances. We should avoid making rash judgments about people’s choices.

Would it have been preferable for my parents to have another child naturally instead? I think it’s presumptuous to judge their choice. I am certainly grateful I was adopted by them. They gave me a good life and brought me up in the faith. Even my Anglican father would take me to Mass if my mother was ill; I rarely missed Mass as a child because of his dedication to his promise of raising the kids Catholic.

I thin it would be equally presumptuous to judge anyone’s choice. Having (or not) a child is a very personal decision between the couple and God.

 

[severus68]

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.

I don’t see why not. It is a great and Christian thing to adopt and become parents to those who have none. They may want to do this for as many as possible.

 

[severus68]

It can be. It depends on circumstances.

My parents married later in life; my father was a widower when he met my mother who was unmarried. When they married, my father was 43 and my mother 37 (side note, my father was Anglican, but they married-in 1955-with dispensation and my father agreed the children would be raised Catholic).

Nature followed its course and they had their first child in 1956, a boy. He died of a rare childhood cancer (neuroblastoma) a little over two years later. By then my mother was 40 and my father 46. I would assume they thought they were too old to have another child naturally; 40+, the risks for the mother and child go up; I remember my late mother telling me (when I was an adult) that her doctor advised adoption instead of having another child naturally. So my parents adopted a 6-week old baby, as it turned out, myself, instead of having another child naturally.

These hypothetical threads are just that, hypothetical. Real life, there are numerous different circumstances. We should avoid making rash judgments about people’s choices.

Would it have been preferable for my parents to have another child naturally instead? I think it’s presumptuous to judge their choice. I am certainly grateful I was adopted by them. They gave me a good life and brought me up in the faith. Even my Anglican father would take me to Mass if my mother was ill; I rarely missed Mass as a child because of his dedication to his promise of raising the kids Catholic.

I thin it would be equally presumptuous to judge anyone’s choice. Having (or not) a child is a very personal decision between the couple and God.

Very well said.

I am so glad your adoption eventually led to your being a member of CAF - a valuable member I have great respect for.

 

[Rau]

It can be. It depends on circumstances.

My parents married later in life; my father was a widower when he met my mother who was unmarried. When they married, my father was 43 and my mother 37 (side note, my father was Anglican, but they married-in 1955-with dispensation and my father agreed the children would be raised Catholic).

Nature followed its course and they had their first child in 1956, a boy. He died of a rare childhood cancer (neuroblastoma) a little over two years later. By then my mother was 40 and my father 46. I would assume they thought they were too old to have another child naturally; 40+, the risks for the mother and child go up; I remember my late mother telling me (when I was an adult) that her doctor advised adoption instead of having another child naturally. So my parents adopted a 6-week old baby, as it turned out, myself, instead of having another child naturally.

These hypothetical threads are just that, hypothetical. Real life, there are numerous different circumstances. We should avoid making rash judgments about people’s choices.

Would it have been preferable for my parents to have another child naturally instead? I think it’s presumptuous to judge their choice. I am certainly grateful I was adopted by them. They gave me a good life and brought me up in the faith. Even my Anglican father would take me to Mass if my mother was ill; I rarely missed Mass as a child because of his dedication to his promise of raising the kids Catholic.

I thin it would be equally presumptuous to judge anyone’s choice. Having (or not) a child is a very personal decision between the couple and God.

Your response has missed the context of the point in debate. I see the scenario you describe as proper. The parents determined they had good reason to use NFP, and did. The parents separately and generously decide to adopt a child.

What if a healthy couple married at 25 and decided to adopt and not to have their own children and used NFP throughout their marriage to avoid pregnancy to give effect to that decision? What if this was their intention prior to marriage? Canon law states one can’t be validly married if one has the intention to permanently avoid having children. Does the intention to adopt overcome that barrier - does adoption amount to “having children”?

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Your response has missed the context of the point in debate. I see the scenario you describe as proper. The parents determined they had good reason to use NFP, and did. The parents separately and generously decide to adopt a child.

What if a healthy couple married at 25 and decided to adopt and not to have their own children and used NFP throughout their marriage to avoid pregnancy to give effect to that decision? What if this was their intention prior to marriage? Canon law states one can’t be validly married if one has the intention to permanently avoid having children. Does the intention to adopt overcome that barrier - does adoption amount to “having children”?

If you have an official reference that the Church treats counts adopted and “natural” children differently, you’ll need to provide that information. Without that evidence, your argument utterly fails. I’m no Canon lawyer, but I doubt that a spouse that willfully adopted 10 kids is going to get anywhere with a Tribunal on the basis of permanent intention against children. .

Furthermore, I doubt that having, say, 10 adopted children resulting in financial stress cannot be used as a reason to use NFP (i.e., the approved birth control method that is open to life).

 

[Rau]

I don’t see why not. It is a great and Christian thing to adopt and become parents to those who have none. They may want to do this for as many as possible.

Adoption is a great thing. The church teaching is explicit that serious teasons are required to use NFP. So the question is, could the plan to adopt children be a serious reason? If one already has a bunch of adopted kids, then another serious reason may arise of course.

Then there is the separate question posed to Ora.

 

[Rau]

If you have an official reference that the Church treats counts adopted and “natural” children differently, you’ll need to provide that information. Without that evidence, your argument utterly fails. I’m no Canon lawyer, but I doubt that a spouse that willfully adopted 10 kids is going to get anywhere with a Tribunal on the basis of permanent intention against children. .

Furthermore, I doubt that having, say, 10 adopted children resulting in financial stress cannot be used as a reason to use NFP (i.e., the approved birth control method that is open to life).

Marriage is required to “have children”, and is instituted for that principal purpose. If you wish to argue that marriage exists equally to facilitate adoption, that case is for you to make. You can’t make the case by saying the a church hasn’t denied it:shrug:.

I raised the Canon in that it provides for the Church to decline to marry persons with a permanent intention to not have children. If you have evidence that adopting children is the same for the purposes of this canon as having children, could you point to it? Absent evidence, I think it reasonable to assume different words mean different things.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Marriage is required to “have children”, and is instituted for that principal purpose.

This is contrary to what the Church teaches. If spouses were required (note absolute terminology) to have children (and naturally, which your argument clearly implies), marriages between elderly persons, objectively sterile individuals, etc. would be null and void by their very nature. Furthermore, the same would be true of Josephite marriages (including that of the Holy Family).

The wording relating to this subject is not absolute as you put forth. The wording is “ordered to/toward,” “open to,” etc,

You can’t make the case by saying the a church hasn’t denied it:shrug:

Yes I can, and it’s easy. What sources of references would you like? Canon Law? Encyclicals? etc.?

On the other hand, I am certain that you will not find any official Church source that uses that absolute terminology you use.

I raised the Canon in that it provides for the Church to decline to marry persons with a permanent intention to not have children.

You mean not have children naturally. And the official Church source to support such a position is where?

If you have evidence that adopting children is the same for the purposes of this canon as having children, could you point to it? Absent evidence, I think it reasonable to assume different words mean different things.

Actually, there is evidence, and I have pointed to it. The way your getting around it is by assuming that all other references to adopted children being treated as “natural children” can be ignored because their is no specific source that addresses your particular issue.

So you really believe a couple could get an annulment based on “permanent intention against children” while adopting 10 children during marriage?

 

[Rau]

This is contrary to what the Church teaches. If spouses were required (note absolute terminology) to have children (and naturally, which your argument clearly implies), marriages between elderly persons, objectively sterile individuals, etc. would be null and void by their very nature. Furthermore, the same would be true of Josephite marriages (including that of the Holy Family).

…

So you really believe a couple could get an annulment based on “permanent intention against children” while adopting 10 children during marriage?

You remind me of my old CAF friend Catholico65 - you ignore what is written by your interlocutor, pretend he wrote something else and obfuscate.

As you well know - I did not say married people were required to have children. I said, marriage is required (ie. a prerequisite) for having children. This is to draw the contrast with adoption, for which marriage is not a prerequisite. Your annulment issue is a red herring - you raised that as an implication of the Canon, not me !! I pointed to the Church’s unwillingness to marry persons (a couple) with a permanent intention not to have children. You are free to argue that adoption, fostering, or running an orphanage is the same as “having children” for the purposes of that Canon.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

You remind me of my old CAF friend Catholico65 - you ignore what is written by your interlocutor, pretend he wrote something else and obfuscate.

Actually, I didn’t ignore what was written.

As you well know - I did not say married people were required to have children. I said, marriage is required (ie. a prerequisite) for having children.

You changed the wording in this paragraph from the prior post so as to clarify your meaning. I readily admit with the change of wording I now understand what you are trying to say.

This is to draw the contrast with adoption, for which marriage is not a prerequisite.

Every mother never married with a child will disagree with you.

Wrong? Sinful? Yes. Obviously not required.

Required to be not sinful? Yes

I pointed to the Church’s unwillingness to marry persons (a couple) with a permanent intention not to have children.

We disagree that a person practicing NFP, that meaning recourse to the infertile period and open to life, is indicative of permanent intention against children.

You are free to argue that adoption, fostering, or running an orphanage is the same as “having children” for the purposes of that Canon.

Now I know you haven’t done your research. Adopting is NOT the same as fostering, running an orphanage, etc. For example, Canon 1094 notes “by a legal relationship arising from adoption.” It does not discuss fostering, running an orphanage, etc. i would assume that it because there is not expectation, nor legal requirement (Church or otherwise) of permanently raising the children, nor are the people taking care of these children treated or identified as parents.

Adopted children are children with legal parents, and the Church recognizes that that relationship, with no reference to the contrary. The only references I can find are those references clarifying that their is not difference; e.g., Canon 1094.

 

[Rau]

We disagree that a person practicing NFP, that meaning recourse to the infertile period and open to life, is indicative of permanent intention against children.

I don’t draw the conclusion above - this is your statement, though you misrepresent is as capturing a view held by me!. Many people have good reason to practice NFP, and a small number have good reason to practice it for the entirety of their marriage. But that is not the basis you have expressed for practicing NFP for the entirety of marriage. If the hypothetical scenario we’re discussing is founded on good reason, the character of the discussion changes entirely.

Now I know you haven’t done your research. Adopting is NOT the same as fostering, running an orphanage, etc.

More wilful obfuscation and misrepresentation?
Your reference to sinning is not an assertion I have made - this is another red herring. The discussion was about what the Church teaches. The reference to single motherhood is another misrepresentation, since “marriage is required to have children” is clearly a statement in the context of Church Teaching, not physical possibilities:shrug:. This stands in contrast with adoption, for which marriage is not required (though my be prudentially preferred) and which is not a purpose for which marriage was instituted.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

I don’t draw the conclusion above - this is your statement, though you misrepresent is as capturing a view held by me!. Many people have good reason to practice NFP, and a small number have good reason to practice it for the entirety of their marriage. But that is not the basis you have expressed for practicing NFP for the entirety of marriage. If the hypothetical scenario we’re discussing is founded on good reason, the character of the discussion changes entirely.

The Church does not teach that adopted and “natural” children are different under any circumstances. You believe so, but that is your own personal opinion, separate from the Church.

This stands in contrast with adoption, for which marriage is not required (though my be prudentially preferred) and which is not a purpose for which marriage was instituted.

However, the Church does not make the distinction you make. The Church does not teach that there is a difference in any manner between the two “types” of children. Repeating it ad naseum does not change that. You have not a single official Church reference that remotely supports your own personal POV.

 

[davidv]

The Church does not teach that adopted and “natural” children are different under any circumstances. You believe so, but that is your own personal opinion, separate from the Church.

However, the Church does not make the distinction you make. The Church does not teach that there is a difference in any manner between the two “types” of children. Repeating it ad naseum does not change that. You have not a single official Church reference that remotely supports your own personal POV.

I believe the Church makes the distinction by describing what marriage is.

1652 By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory."162

Note that it states procreation of children, not adoption of children.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Note that it doesn’t even require children in the first place.

Note also that it does not exclude marriage being ordered to having adopted children either.

What’s occurring is that people are taking individual pieces of the puzzle and concluding that is the puzzle. However, once several puzzle pieces are put together, each a assumed to represent the puzzle, a jumbled, nonsensical picture arises.

I prefer to put together the puzzle with as many pieces as possible first. This way the way the pieces of the puzzle fit together are understood, and a coherent discussion can be had.

Without that overall understanding, people get confused by, say, the question I made earlier; i.e., does anybody believe that a Tribunal is going to buy the argument that a married couple with 10 adopted children can claim permanent intention against children if they divorce.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

1652 By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory."162

Since you are using this particular reference, why are Josephite marriages permitted?

If you conclude Josephite marriages are valid, how would reconcile the Josephite marriage being valid yet the couple that only adopts children not being valid? Or more particularly, a marriage in which is not ordered to having children being valid, whereas a marriage ordered toward having adopted children until the family is bursting at the seems be invalid.

 

[Rau]

Note that it doesn’t even require children in the first place.

Note also that it does not exclude marriage being ordered to having adopted children either.

What’s occurring is that people are taking individual pieces of the puzzle and concluding that is the puzzle. However, once several puzzle pieces are put together, each a assumed to represent the puzzle, a jumbled, nonsensical picture arises.

I prefer to put together the puzzle with as many pieces as possible first. This way the way the pieces of the puzzle fit together are understood, and a coherent discussion can be had.

Without that overall understanding, people get confused by, say, the question I made earlier; i.e., does anybody believe that a Tribunal is going to buy the argument that a married couple with 10 adopted children can claim permanent intention against children if they divorce.

This response is evasive and introduces irrelevancies to avoid the issue.

 

[Rau]

Since you are using this particular reference, why are Josephite marriages permitted?

If you conclude Josephite marriages are valid, how would reconcile the Josephite marriage being valid yet the couple that only adopts children not being valid? Or more particularly, a marriage in which is not ordered to having children being valid, whereas a marriage ordered toward having adopted children until the family is bursting at the seems be invalid.

My goodness, you complained when I referred to Josephite marriages as being an option! A Josephite marriage, with the couple foregoing sexual relations entirely, is just fine. And adoption is just fine. But a non-Josephite marriage of a healthy fertile couple with a permanent intention not to have children? Why are they shunning their fertility? Why are they getting married?

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

This response is evasive and introduces irrelevancies to avoid the issue.

Kind of like your continued and utter refusal to post any Church reference to support your personal opinions.