Agreed. But that’s not the same as saying its the lawmakers making them close, it’s the combination of the laws and the doctrine that’s doing that. But why not try following the first example and seeing how things go?
A couple of reasons that I can think of. This assumes that the local Ordinary (bishop) would be closing his eyes to the situation and allowing it in the first place.
1, There would be a public scandal created. Scandal, in Catholic terms, means a situation that, if unaddressed, would have the effect of leading other people astray.
- The soul of the child would be far more likely to be damaged. The homosexual adoptive parent(s) are far more likely than heterosexual adoptive parent(s) to teach the adopted child(ren) that the Church’s teaching on homosexuality is wrong. From there, it is a quick leap to teach that the Church’s teaching on chastity, in general, is wrong.
3, The soul(s) of the prospective adoptive parent(s) is(are) likely to be damaged. The teaching of the Church as regards people with homosexual tendencies is clear: you should treat them with the love and respect because of their dignity as human beings, created in the image of God. But in no way are you to acknowledge normalcy to that condition. (See the 1988 CDF Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons –
Homosexualitatis problema)
Would the Vatican excommunicate members of an agency that stayed open and followed the law?
“Excommunicate” is a term bandied around pretty liberally by non-Catholics and ignorant Catholics.
“Excommunication” is a specific form of medicinal punishment that is applied under very limited circumstances. It is medicinal rather than expiatory as it seeks to heal the person who has had that punishment imposed. There used to be two forms of excommunication:
tolerati, where the person was simply excluded from the sacraments, and
vitandi, where the person was excluded from the sacraments and members of the Church were told to avoid the person.
Vitandi excommunication has only rarely ever been applied particularly in the last few centuries and was completely done away with in the 1983 Code of Canon Law.
There is not a specific article in the Code of Canon Law that deals with adoption agencies staying open. If they determined that they would stay open, hopefully the local Ordinary (bishop of the local church) would direct them to cease identifying themselves as a Catholic agency.
In theory, the agency and its officers could theoretically be brought before an ecclesiastical court for violation of Canon 1371. If they publicly incite people to disobey the Ordinary, they could add a charge of violating Canon 1373. If they publicly teach that homosexuality is perfectly OK and don’t stop when ordered, they could be declared in violation of Canon 1364.
Would they refuse them Mass if they didn’t remove “Catholic” from the name?
No. If a person is not found guilty by an ecclesiastical trial, they would not be refused communion. Unless they are guilty of a latae sentinae offense (in which case, the penalty is immediately effective, even without the act of the bishop or ecclesiastical court)
What would the Vatican do if they chose to stay open?
Not so much what the Vatican
would do as what
could the Vatican do…and the answer is “not much.” If the charity is set up with the local bishop having executive power, the local bishop could close it down, fire those who acted outside of his directives, etc. But if the local bishop does not have executive power, then, even those actions would not be possible.
The question always is a matter of what power the Vatican has. Without the support of the State, really there is nothing other than moral authority. It has always been thus. Even in the middle ages: the Vatican never chopped anybody’s head off and never burned anybody at the stake. They would declare that a person was guilty of an ecclesiastical crime and, then, at that point, turn the person over to the civil authorities. The State, using
civil laws against blasphemy, heresy, etc., would then apply those civil penalties.
In these days where people really don’t care what the Church says (unless they agree with Her), bishops, including the Pope, really cannot do more than talk, unless there is something directly under their control. And, even then, for the most part the person who has the ability to do something is the local bishop. But, given that exception, if people don’t heed the words of that bishop (or the pope), there’s not much that can be done.
