S
StrawberryJam
Guest
Or the horror of your feeling the right to bust into people’s homes with your religion’s morality forced down their throats. Nice. Morally great stuff there!!
- Status
O
onthenarrowpath
Guest
I should have clarified in my OP that I wasn’t talking about what the RCC could, or could not, do legally. When I asked if the church would advocate removing the children from the home, I didn’t mean to infer that the church had any legal influence regarding this, nor do I think that is something the church should pursue. I suppose it would have been more accurate to ask what the church’s moral position is on the matter.
O
onthenarrowpath
Guest
Listen, I don’t know what your problem is, or why you’re taking the attitude with me that you are, but I don’t appreciate it. You asked above how old I am…? It’s irrelevant and none of your business, as it has no bearing on this subject. However, I would like to point out that because you are taking such a vitriolic tone with me, in a forum devoted to Catholicism and its beliefs, I dare say my responses have shown that I’m much more mature than you are.
If you can’t post a civil response, please don’t post anything at all.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
I don’t see anything in the CCC that advocates anything remotely close to what you are asking. What other documents would you find acceptable to you? Do you recall in your lifetime any pope advocating this?
R
Rence
Guest
The Church’s position is that it forbids homosexual relations. They recognize homosexual orientation but the person is called to be celebate. A homosexual couple living together is like an unmarried heterosexual couple living together: they’re both living in sin unless celebate. Though I haven’t seen it in black & white, the fact that they deny homosexual couples from adopting out of their orphanages speaks for their moral position on the matter. Does that answer your question? I’m sure someone else has seen their moral position regarding this subject in writing and will probably pop with with a link. Sorry I don’t have one for you. This subject isn’t something that Catholics have to look up to know…
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
He’s asking if the church would advocate **removing a child **that is in a home with homosexual parents.
I think he is implying that it’s possible that it could be moral for the catholic church to enforce something like this even if it is illegal to do so in a given country.
The only time I believe it can be moral for an individual catholic, or a catholic and THEIR family to break any laws would be if it prohibited THEM from practicing their faith.
But, of course I don’t want to rule out the possibility that some loophole exists that would ever allow such a thing happening with the stamp of approval coming from the Bishop of Rome. As a reasonable person however, I think it is as probable as money falling from the sky.
R
Rence
Guest
He’s asking if the church would advocate **removing a child **that is in a home with homosexual parents.
**Probably…I mean, it’s not in writing anywhere that I know of, but I’m sure they would. Look, the CC believes it’s detrimental to the growth and development of a child to be in any “unnatural” environment, including with nonmarried couples. I don’t think they allow unmarried hetero couples to adopt out of their CC-owned orphanages either. I’m not even sure if they allow single people to do so. And surely, they believe it is better for a child to grow up with a mother and a father, which is why they work so hard to keep families together. So it would only stand to reason, that YES, they probably would advoate, (and they would if they could), remove a child from that environment. They feel it’s their responsibility. Doesn’t any religion? Look at the JW’s, who don’t believe in blood transfusions. The medical field thinks nothing of getting a court order for a blood transfusion to save the life of a child. Imagine how upset JWs feel about that. But the courts are there to protect the children. The same intention comes from the CC. **
I think he is implying that it’s possible that it could be moral for the catholic church to enforce something like this even if it is illegal to do so in a given country.
Oh, well, I don’t think that’s possible, but who knows? They would have to get the laws changed, and for the U.S. there is growing support for gay and homosexual couples, and it’s not likely their lifestyle will be outlawed, and certainly not on the grounds of it being against any Church teachings. That’s one of the things that falls in “separation of Church and State”. If the CC could bring about legislation to support their view, of course they would, as it goes against their teachings.
The only time I believe it can be moral for an individual catholic, or a catholic and THEIR family to break any laws would be if it prohibited THEM from practicing their faith.
But, of course I don’t want to rule out the possibility that some loophole exists that would ever allow such a thing happening with the stamp of approval coming from the Bishop of Rome. As a reasonable person however, I think it is as probable as money falling from the sky.
Well don’t just pick on the Bishop of Rome, homosexuality is against religions other than the Catholic ChurchMy perspective comes from the angle of the CC because I’m Catholic. While I follow the CC as best I can, I just don’t believe in forcing others to do so. And that only comes from the fact that I wouldn’t want another religion’s laws forced on me (or an atheist’s rules for that matter). Regardless of how I feel about a particular teaching of the CC, I choose to follow the teachings of the Church. I don’t expect that from someone who doesn’t belong to my religion, or from someone without religion. It would horrify me to have to suffer another religion’s rules. So I try to give non-believers the same respect that I demand from them. I hope that makes sense to you.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
There are many things that can be detrimental and go against catholic teachings in just about any home everywhere everyday in the world.
Even Catholic homes. GASP
But, we all know that.
Can I get an Amen to that, before I continue to ask everyone here to use their reasoning skills that they say God gave them?
EDIT to add: Don’t think I am unaware of Edgardo Mortara either.
Even Catholic homes. GASP
But, we all know that.
Can I get an Amen to that, before I continue to ask everyone here to use their reasoning skills that they say God gave them?
EDIT to add: Don’t think I am unaware of Edgardo Mortara either.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
I don’t have an “official” answer, but these are certainly facts:
(1) Wherever civil authorities have approved/formalized “gay marriage,” including custody of minor children, “parenting” of minor children – through reproductive technology, heterosexual reproduction of convenience, and adoptions – even the civil authorities have no legitimacy in removing the children of such households. In fact, as it is right now, parenting is a free-for-all, and has unfortunately been for some time. Single women can become mothers & head up households via IRL or anonymous sperm donors who abandon their biological responsibilities. Same for cohabiting straight partners, etc.
We have never had formal prohibitions against even inappropriate straight parenting, but that’s because so much more of society had (a) common sense (b) less available, reliable contraception (c) much more of a sense of personal honor & an internalized moral code (d) the heterosexual married state was the overwhelming approved environment for parenting; there was significant social disapproval of unstructured arrangements for children.
(2) The RCC has no civil authority to remove the children of gay “parents” – however those children, sadly, were created or acquired.
(3) The real conflict comes, i.m.o., in catechesis and sacramental initiation. No matter how charitable in manner we are commanded to be to all people, I don’t see how any priest faithful to the RCC can seriously call the “parents” of a young baptismal candidate the candidates’ “two parents.” They are not. They are the child’s guardians. They are either one biological mother & one adoptive mother, or one biological father and one adoptive father, and thus they are not a whole parental pair. Or they are two adoptive guardians. They are not parents, plural, in the definition of parenthood, which specifies two different genders as patterned in nature.
In catechesis, as others have mentioned, it would be necessary to instruct in moral theology. It puts a child of such a relationship in an uncomfortable & conflicted position to hear about how his or her guardians’ relationship is fundamentally disordered & prohibited. But a faithful catecheist, priest, bishop, would have no other choice.
As others have noted, the situation creates scandal, as – by not addressing it - it tacitly approves of an unchaste cohabitating relationship by members of the same sex, while demanding moral compliance from heterosexual parents. This also creates morale problems for other parents – for example, at a Catholic school. Suppose there is a divorced mother who has found a loving patner & stepfather for her child, but must wait for an annullment before formalizing any such relationship (rather than cohabitating). Why should she and he be bound by the moral law, while not the “gay parents”?
It is a morally incongruous situation which demands resolution and equity.
I find it incomprehensible that a supposedly Catholic gay “couple” – even if acquiring children by adoption & not assisted technology, and even if supposedly living chastely – would formally participate in a Catholic life while cohabitating. It sets up a double standard (as already described), since cohabitating straight couples would be assumed to be sexually intimate, even if they claimed chastity.
So the only option for such a gay Catholic “couple” would be to live chastely & live apart and not to initiate guardianship over children, by any means. What’s the point, then, in announcing oneself as a “couple”? Get real. You’re not allowed to be truly a couple in RCC moral theology. You’re also not allowed to acquire children through the kind of assisted reproduction which would be necessary for biological acquisition. It seems to me that an honest choice has to be made: Do you want a truly Catholic lifestyle, or do you want a more active or more intimate, or more apparently intimate, gay lifestyle in which no church cares whether or not your partnership arouses suspicion, creates a sense of injustice, etc.? Because the truth is that the two lifestyles are incompatible.
(1) Wherever civil authorities have approved/formalized “gay marriage,” including custody of minor children, “parenting” of minor children – through reproductive technology, heterosexual reproduction of convenience, and adoptions – even the civil authorities have no legitimacy in removing the children of such households. In fact, as it is right now, parenting is a free-for-all, and has unfortunately been for some time. Single women can become mothers & head up households via IRL or anonymous sperm donors who abandon their biological responsibilities. Same for cohabiting straight partners, etc.
We have never had formal prohibitions against even inappropriate straight parenting, but that’s because so much more of society had (a) common sense (b) less available, reliable contraception (c) much more of a sense of personal honor & an internalized moral code (d) the heterosexual married state was the overwhelming approved environment for parenting; there was significant social disapproval of unstructured arrangements for children.
(2) The RCC has no civil authority to remove the children of gay “parents” – however those children, sadly, were created or acquired.
(3) The real conflict comes, i.m.o., in catechesis and sacramental initiation. No matter how charitable in manner we are commanded to be to all people, I don’t see how any priest faithful to the RCC can seriously call the “parents” of a young baptismal candidate the candidates’ “two parents.” They are not. They are the child’s guardians. They are either one biological mother & one adoptive mother, or one biological father and one adoptive father, and thus they are not a whole parental pair. Or they are two adoptive guardians. They are not parents, plural, in the definition of parenthood, which specifies two different genders as patterned in nature.
In catechesis, as others have mentioned, it would be necessary to instruct in moral theology. It puts a child of such a relationship in an uncomfortable & conflicted position to hear about how his or her guardians’ relationship is fundamentally disordered & prohibited. But a faithful catecheist, priest, bishop, would have no other choice.
As others have noted, the situation creates scandal, as – by not addressing it - it tacitly approves of an unchaste cohabitating relationship by members of the same sex, while demanding moral compliance from heterosexual parents. This also creates morale problems for other parents – for example, at a Catholic school. Suppose there is a divorced mother who has found a loving patner & stepfather for her child, but must wait for an annullment before formalizing any such relationship (rather than cohabitating). Why should she and he be bound by the moral law, while not the “gay parents”?
It is a morally incongruous situation which demands resolution and equity.
I find it incomprehensible that a supposedly Catholic gay “couple” – even if acquiring children by adoption & not assisted technology, and even if supposedly living chastely – would formally participate in a Catholic life while cohabitating. It sets up a double standard (as already described), since cohabitating straight couples would be assumed to be sexually intimate, even if they claimed chastity.
So the only option for such a gay Catholic “couple” would be to live chastely & live apart and not to initiate guardianship over children, by any means. What’s the point, then, in announcing oneself as a “couple”? Get real. You’re not allowed to be truly a couple in RCC moral theology. You’re also not allowed to acquire children through the kind of assisted reproduction which would be necessary for biological acquisition. It seems to me that an honest choice has to be made: Do you want a truly Catholic lifestyle, or do you want a more active or more intimate, or more apparently intimate, gay lifestyle in which no church cares whether or not your partnership arouses suspicion, creates a sense of injustice, etc.? Because the truth is that the two lifestyles are incompatible.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
Why have you invented things not mentioned in the OP? The OP never made any mention of the homosexual couple being catholic, desiring catholic baptism for their child, or enrolling their child in catholic school. Why have you injected these things into the opening post that does not apply to this original senario at all?
The Original post is asking a point blank question about removing a child from a home that has in this case homosexual parents raising a child.
And he is now aware that it is totally illegal to do such a thing, yet he wants to know if it could be moral to do so anyway in catholic teaching.
Long past are the days where you will ever again see something like the case of Edgardo Mortara. And, at that time the church was saving that child from Judaism.
Holy smokes folks!
J
Jermosh
Guest
Is a child being raised in a same sex family optimal. No.
Is a child being raised in a same sex family in the worst situation. No by any means, I have known kids and even dated a girl who came from SSF, they are as normal as most other kids.
Is a child being raised in a same sex family in the worst situation. No by any means, I have known kids and even dated a girl who came from SSF, they are as normal as most other kids.
V
Voice_of_Reason_1
Guest
They are? Well then why are you making anecdotal claims about it being less than optimal?
J
Jermosh
Guest
Because all of man is less then optimal, even a child grown in a large and devout Catholic family is less then optimal.
V
Voice_of_Reason_1
Guest
T
thistle
Guest
The position of the Church is clear.
Gay/lesbian “couples” should never be allowed to adopt children.
As I said, in places where adoption agencies are to be forced to allow gays to adopt then Catholic adoption agencies are closing rather than allow children to be given to and be brought up by morally bankrupt homosexuals.
V
Voice_of_Reason_1
Guest
Typical Christian bigotry. How are homosexuals morally bankrupt?
T
thistle
Guest
By being active sexually with same sex partners!
V
Voice_of_Reason_1
Guest
Do you know what the term bankruptcy means? It’s a big enough pill to swallow that homosexuals are somehow morally inferior to other sinners, like yourself, let alone completely devoid of any moral virtue or cadence, whatsoever.
Perhaps you should rethink your position.
O
OraLabora
Guest
FWIW, I don’t think gays are any more morally bankrupt than the rest of us. Just as the rest of us wrestle with sexual sin because society (especially the media) has made sexual freedom so prominent, gays have their own battles against promiscuity, infidelity, and illicit acts (by illicit, I mean from a Church perspective, not a legal one). And gays do have the right to be protected against discrimination.
But so too do children. Perhaps even more so because they are so vulnerable.
I mentioned that I was brought up without a male role model in my adolescence. I should probably also clarify that I (male) was brought up by two women. But they were only same-sex partners to the extent that they were both women: they were biological sisters, and we moved in with my spinster aunt after my father died as my mother’s health was too fragile for her to go back to work and we were too poor to live alone.
Now don’t get me wrong, they were both loving women and were exceptionally kind to me (and firm with me when I needed it).
But my aunt, was not and could not ever be a substitute for my father. A male child looks up to his father as a role model. Who hasn’t witnessed or been part of a “my dad is smarter/stronger/cooler than your dad” schoolyard brawl. Before my father died, he had started to talk to me about sex (in an educational manner), but his death cut that short. My mother simply couldn’t bring herself to do it, and this was before it was part of the school curriculum in my area. It didn’t help.
I was deprived of my father by his death. Some people split up and their kids are deprived of one of their parents (usually the father) in this manner as well; shared custody just isn’t the same as a united family living under the same roof.
If anything my argument here isn’t so much as against gay parenting. It’s against the evil of divorce, and homosexuality is just one more cause of it.
Research is one thing. At the end of the day research is just numbers on paper. Sure we end up well-adjusted, eventually, and manage to overcome our grief and move on.
But inside of us, we fatherless sons feel a deep wound that persists to this day. My father died 39 years ago, and would be 97 years old if he were still alive, but I still feel the hurt at times and think about him a lot. I also know the son of a gay man whose father left his mother to go on and live out his sexuality. He’s in his 30s now, and he feels more or less the same sense of loss that I did. But it was even worse, he came to resent his father. In my case my parents had a loving marriage up until the day he died.
You will argue, rightly from a scientific perspective that this is all anecdotal and I will agree with that aspect as I was trained as a scientist myself. But my friend, what lies locked in the secrets of our hearts is something that the research will probably never capture on paper. On the surface, myself and the son of a gay man I spoke of, both appear normal. We’ve married, had kids of our own, I have a successful career, the other fellow (now in his 30s) has gone back to school to get a university degree.
That’s likely what the research will capture. Not the deep hurt.
R
Rence
Guest
For example, my father was very verbally and emotionally abusive to my mother and her parents all while I grew up. I don’t even remember him being nice to my grandparents ever. He was very very harsh on my brother as a small child. He thought of me as his “little girl” until I turned 12. Then I was just like everyone else. The house was constantly in turmoil. He made our home a battlefield. He called my mom, my brother and me names I can’t even repeat here. Think of them, that’s what he called us. He went through what I call male-menopause when he was in his mid-30s and started doing drugs and hanging out with unsavory people. He stole money from my parents. He pulled my brother out of seminary preparatory (and high school in general) to work in a “store” that was really a front for drug trafficking and “running bad taxes”. One day, when I was 18 and studying for a final, he came home drunk and started beating on my mom, not only did I beat his a off her, but I kicked him out of our home, and my brother made sure he didn’t come back. The next day I had an order of protection made against him for 2 years. He never set foot in our home again. I haven’t spoken to him in over 20 years. He completely screwed up me and my brother. Who wouldn’t be? So please understand that it annoys me to no end when people lament that they only had one parent growing up
It did nothing for me. She should have divorced him when she came back home from her honeymoon (and yes, she had grounds according to the teachings of the CC, and not for beating, cheating, or being a common piece of trash, because those aren’t valid reasons for the CC). As it is, a very strict and traditional priest tried to counsel them, and wound up helping her get an annullment.Hetero parents are no more “qualified” to create a happy and stable home for a child than ANY other parent. Yes, it would be optimal to grow up in a home with a mother and a father who didn’t kill each other. It socializes the child and teaches traditional family values. But look at the statistics: it’s not happening. So why deny an adopted child a home, rather than growing up in a broken system run by the state.
A have a friend whose sister is gay. She and her SO adopted a child from China. Who dare say that child is better off destined for a brothel in China (look at the statistics if you don’t believe me) rather than in a home with a couple who love her? Until you can solve the very immediate problem of unwanted children, please don’t deny them the only chance they have to make it in the world. Especially in parts of the world where female babies aren’t worth the ragged blanket they lay in. If you don’t want children in anything but “optimal” homes, then adopt them yourself. You’re not willing to adopt that child, stop whining about who is.**
- Status