Can a married couple consistently give up their kids for adoption?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thorns
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Thorns

Guest
Purely hypothetical, but can a validly married couple who has regular and freuqent sexual intercourse with no barriers, no artificial birth control, no NFP, doesnt believe in abortion, who willingly accept children into the world, but continually and consistently give up each child they conceive for adoption, be in good standing with the Catholic Church?
 
I’m pretty sure it’s not that simple to give up kids for adoption. It’s probably way too much trouble for people to use as some sort of consistent child dump-off. And I don’t think it would be right, because they have responsibility for their children and have no legitimate reason to give them up. It is one thing for a young single mother who is not able to care for a child, but an adult married couple, I believe, would have no excuse.
 
Purely hypothetical, but can a validly married couple who has regular and freuqent sexual intercourse with no barriers, no artificial birth control, no NFP, doesnt believe in abortion, who willingly accept children into the world, but continually and consistently give up each child they conceive for adoption and be in good standing with the Catholic Church?
Not sure what the moral theologians would say, but it sounds like a pretty callous thing to do. Fortunately, it’s also very unlikely, unless the couple were mentally deficient, mentally ill, or had some sort of serious addiction. (I have heard of a real life case, not involving Catholics, but the parents of a group of Russian adoptees–the couple was presumably deficient in some respect.) Pregnancy is normally too taxing for a functional person of normal intelligence to undergo it repeatedly with no intention of keeping the babies.
 
Bear in mind that we believe marriage is intended both for the procreation AND education of children, so this hypothetical couple would be failing with regard to the “education” half of their duty.
 
I’m pretty sure it’s not that simple to give up kids for adoption. It’s probably way too much trouble for people to use as some sort of consistent child dump-off. And I don’t think it would be right, because they have responsibility for their children and have no legitimate reason to give them up. It is one thing for a young single mother who is not able to care for a child, but an adult married couple, I believe, would have no excuse.
Is there anything in the vows or any official Church document that says a couple has to raise their own children?

What if the couple simply feels the child(ren) will be better cared for in another family?
 
Bear in mind that we believe marriage is intended both for the procreation AND education of children, so this hypothetical couple would be failing with regard to the “education” half of their duty.
Do men and women in the service who have to stay on base away from their families who fail to educate and raise their kids, commit sin?

In fact, didnt many of the Apostles have wives and kids, whom they left in order to start a new life following Jesus?
 
Do men and women in the service who have to stay on base away from their families who fail to educate and raise their kids, commit sin?

In fact, didnt many of the Apostles have wives and kids, whom they left in order to start a new life following Jesus?
Being absent, even for an extended period of time, is not at all the same thing as not providing for your children. In your first example, it’s a condition of employment - and the servicemember is employed in order to provide for his or her family. Hopefully, they will be reunited.

As far as the second, are you really suggesting the Apostles just completely abandoned their families? :eek:
 
I think this would depend completely on intent. Are they doing it for truly selfish or selfless reasons?

If it’s truly selfless & noble, then perhaps the hypothetical couple should refrain from sex because if it is noble and sinless, then the couple will be in great pain for continuing to give up their children.
 
Is there anything in the vows or any official Church document that says a couple has to raise their own children?

What if the couple simply feels the child(ren) will be better cared for in another family?
One of the questions a couple is asked at the wedding reads as follows:

Will you accept children lovingly from God, and teach them according to the laws of Christ and His Church?

One of the primary goods of marriage is the extension of the spiritual life and providing a stable foundation for the raising of children. Consequently, a couple who is constantly placing their children seem to be very selfish, IMHO.
 
Is there anything in the vows or any official Church document that says a couple has to raise their own children?

What if the couple simply feels the child(ren) will be better cared for in another family?
If the couple believe they will be unable to raise (more) children themselves, it would seem they ought to be more conservative in their sexual relations.

Having the intention of giving children away, as many as might come from a “full” and frequent sexual relationship - does not sound very parental to me. Arguably, it brings an unknown risk to the life of the child, and denies the child his/her right to know and be brought up by his/her parents, all for no apparent reason.
 
“didn’t many of the apostles have wives and kids?” thorn, are you really catholic?
 
If the couple believe they will be unable to raise (more) children themselves, it would seem they ought to be more conservative in their sexual relations.

Having the intention of giving children away, as many as might come from a “full” and frequent sexual relationship - does not sound very parental to me. Arguably, it brings an unknown risk to the life of the child, and denies the child his/her right to know and be brought up by his/her parents, all for no apparent reason.
Yes–a lot of us hesitate even to leave our children in the care of people we know pretty well for a few hours.
 
If the couple believe they will be unable to raise (more) children themselves, it would seem they ought to be more conservative in their sexual relations.

Having the intention of giving children away, as many as might come from a “full” and frequent sexual relationship - does not sound very parental to me. Arguably, it brings an unknown risk to the life of the child, and denies the child his/her right to know and be brought up by his/her parents, all for no apparent reason.
Are you implying that poor and less fortunate married couples should not be having sex and/or having children?
 
I think this would depend completely on intent. Are they doing it for truly selfish or selfless reasons?

If it’s truly selfless & noble, then perhaps the hypothetical couple should refrain from sex because if it is noble and sinless, then the couple will be in great pain for continuing to give up their children.
Like I said, what if the couple feels the children can be brought up in a better environment with a more hopeful future?

Isnt adoption a viable, prolife option?
 
Are you implying that poor and less fortunate married couples should not be having sex and/or having children?
He’s implying that if you don’t want children, then you should be practicing abstinence.
 
Like I said, what if the couple feels the children can be brought up in a better environment with a more hopeful future?

Isnt adoption a viable, prolife option?
While it might be an excellent thing to go for adoption as a good last option or to “farm out” children temporarily in a case of great need, a couple should not be hopping into bed planning that any children conceived by their union will be placed for adoption. As people have mentioned, the education of children is just as much a duty as their procreation and responsible parenthood is explicitly encouraged in Humanae Vitae.

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

Have a look at the section on “responsible parenthood.”

“With regard to man’s innate drives and emotions, responsible parenthood means that man’s reason and will must exert control over them.”

“With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.”

“Responsible parenthood, as we use the term here, has one further essential aspect of paramount importance. It concerns the objective moral order which was established by God, and of which a right conscience is the true interpreter. In a word, the exercise of responsible parenthood requires that husband and wife, keeping a right order of priorities, recognize their own duties toward God, themselves, their families and human society.”

“From this it follows that they are not free to act as they choose in the service of transmitting life, as if it were wholly up to them to decide what is the right course to follow. On the contrary, they are bound to ensure that what they do corresponds to the will of God the Creator. The very nature of marriage and its use makes His will clear, while the constant teaching of the Church spells it out.”

The sort of scenario you mention (unlimited sexual union, no parenting) is pretty much unknown unless there is a serious problem with the couple (whether mental illness, other mental deficiency, or serious substance abuse problem).

There has been at least one case on the forum where a married woman wanted to place a fourth and fifth child for adoption, but there seemed to be fairly serious mental health issues at play.
 
As far as the second, are you really suggesting the Apostles just completely abandoned their families? :eek:
They wouldn’t have abandoned them–in fact, Scripture indicates just the opposite:

Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? 1 Corinthians 9:5 (RSV-CE)
 
They wouldn’t have abandoned them–in fact, Scripture indicates just the opposite:

Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? 1 Corinthians 9:5 (RSV-CE)
Thank you! 👍

I knew that couldn’t be right.
 
He’s implying that if you don’t want children, then you should be practicing abstinence.
But what if they do want children, but they just arent capable of caring for them fully so theh act in a responsible and prolife way by giving them up for adoption?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top