Elizabeth, I don’t think anything Mary wrote is related to that comment.
And I am telling you that, given her specific phrases, she is picking it up from the same Urban Legend that assumes that homosexuals have a superior quotient of altruism, “love,” and “commitment” than heterosexual parents do. (Those are the Talking Pointsi from the Gay Lobby.)
And I am telling you that the Gay Lobby argues the Extremes to “prove” the norm., argues the Negative to “prove” (an illogical) false positive. And heterosexuals who are “sympathetic” buy it.
I am telling you that the propaganda is unconsciously picked up by Catholics and non-Catholics who are brow-beaten into feeling guilty about the supposedly oppressed homosexual class of people in the USA, who supposedly (the Urban Legend continues) are the heroic and romantic ideal of pure love.
(Again, Heterosexuality, Bad. Homosexuality, Good.)
I think what Abp. Cordileone was getting at, but didn’t quite say, is that a child needs both a mother and a father. A male and female role model is invaluable for giving the child a balanced experience of the world and insight into how to adapt to that world.
There’s no “think” about it. It’s obvious. It’s obvious that he is does know that, and it’s clear that you, as an insightful person, intuitively understand that,
as does most of the human race.
We keep going through these frankly stupid arguments over and over, Dale. (I’m obviously not referring to you or to other persons, but to the re–presentation of them weekly on CAF.) Been there, done that. It’s been talked to death. It is not necessarily a Good for a homosexual couple to be the artificial “parents” of a child, including one they (as a couple) adopt and raise. The model of the homosexual couple in the household is a lot more complex than merely two heterosexuals of the same gender (say, the mother and the aunt or grandmother) being the only two adult guardians in the household. It gets very tiresome to keep resurrecting the CAF discussions about this which have occurred over the last 4 years. Really old.
My impatience is related to the fact that the omnipresent “new” idea keeps being “introduced” as if it’s novel and profound. It is actually the Church’s theology and integrated philosophy about marriage, family, gender that is profound, not the shallow understanding of “love” from the secular culture. Anyone who truly understands that theology, and how unified it is, would never try to overlay secular reasoning on that and seriously argue that maybe the Church’s reasoning, or an Archbishop’s reasoning, is incomplete or inadequate.
Two or three years ago on CAF I weighed in on what I would consider (and I believe the Church would also consider, given my understanding of the consistency of the theology) an allowable exception to adoption by a homosexual. The Church will never approve of artificial methods of reproduction such as are required when
the anatomy is absent. As someone else alluded to, that moral reasoning extends to heterosexual infertility as well. Separating oneself from the organic reproductive process is gravely evil.
There could be individual cases where a single, inactive homosexual adopts a child who is not a candidate for adoption by a healthy heterosexual couple. I’m not going to repeat all the reasons here.
In any case, children are not commodities. Children are not products of technology. Children are not separate from their origins. Children are a gift (
not right) to a heterosexual couple. Even a heterosexual couple does not have a “right” to a child.
