Church view on adoption

[coconutty]

I have been wondering about this.
I know every husband and wife must be open to life. That’s fine and dandy. Now, what if either the husband or wife (or hopefully not both) have extreme trouble concieving? They used NFP when they weren’t prepared to have a child, and now are trying to concieve, but found out they have medical issues and it is highly unlikely. They aren’t willing to do something that goes against their theological morals in order to concieve such as embryo donation. Would the couple be allowed to adopt a baby?
Let’s say if they adopted a baby, they’d still keep trying or use NFP. Would this go against the Church? Does the Church allow adoption?
I’m not in a situation like this (trust me, I’m way too young to think about marriage or kids) but I was just curious.

2.Also, I had another question. The Church is against ABC, clearly. But what would happen if a husband or wife had an untreatable disease that could be passed on to the partner or any of their potential offspring? Would condoms be allowed in that case? And would it be allowed to use NFP to prevent children for the marriage if there was a deadly disease that will more than likely be passed onto the child? Also, in that case, is adoption a choice?

 

[bubble_lady]

Adoption is always an option for Catholics. Jesus not only condoned it, but encouraged it when He said that whoever received one of “these little ones” (children) received Him. NFP is taught at Pre-Cana classes, and would therefore also be in keeping with the Church’s teaching. There is no sin in trying to keep conceiving along natural paths, the Church would not ban someone from that just because they had already completed a successful adoption.
Condoms, like other artificial means of birth control, are a hinderance to the couple’s complete acceptance of one another in the physical act of love. They were created by people who try to seperate sex from marriage and treat sex as though it were not a gift from God for married people, but some sort of gymnastic exercise.

 

[1ke]

Would the couple be allowed to adopt a baby?

So, what exactly would lead you to believe the Church would have a teaching against adoption?

Let’s say if they adopted a baby, they’d still keep trying or use NFP. Would this go against the Church?

Again, on what possible basis would the Church have a teaching against this. I am not following your line of thinking.

2.Also, I had another question. The Church is against ABC, clearly. But what would happen if a husband or wife had an untreatable disease that could be passed on to the partner or any of their potential offspring?

They can abstain.

Would condoms be allowed in that case?

No.

And would it be allowed to use NFP to prevent children for the marriage if there was a deadly disease that will more than likely be passed onto the child?

A couple can abstain as much or as little as they choose.

Also, in that case, is adoption a choice?

Why would you believe otherwise?

 

[coconutty]

So, what exactly would lead you to believe the Church would have a teaching against adoption?

I didn’t know, because I know married couples are supposed to procreate. So a couple can marry without the intent of having biological children because of infertility, the woman’s fear over delivery, just not interested in pregnancy etc and adopt instead, as long as they use NFP?

Again, on what possible basis would the Church have a teaching against this. I am not following your line of thinking.

I wasn’t sure if adoption fulfilled the marital obligation. i think it does, but I didn’t know what the Church thought.

They can abstain.

But isn’t abstinence in marriage sinful if it is used forever because that is completely closed off to the possibility of procreation?

No.

So if a woman/man has AIDS, they cannot use condoms for marital sex? Can’t they adopt instead because non-condom use would spread AIDS? That’s wrong.

A couple can abstain as much or as little as they choose.

I see the point in that regard…

Why would you believe otherwise?
I see the point there as well.

 

[1ke]

I didn’t know, because I know married couples are supposed to procreate.

That has no bearing on adoption.

So a couple can marry without the intent of having biological children because of infertility, the woman’s fear over delivery, just not interested in pregnancy etc and adopt instead, as long as they use NFP?

I did not say that.

A permanent intention against children creates an impediment to valid marriage. Infertility is not an impediment, because that is beyond the control of the man or woman. The other items you list are not the same as infertility, those are an act of the will.

I wasn’t sure if adoption fulfilled the marital obligation. i think it does, but I didn’t know what the Church thought.

I don’t understand what you mean by marital obligation.

Adoption is an act of charity towards a child in need of a home.

But isn’t abstinence in marriage sinful if it is used forever because that is completely closed off to the possibility of procreation?

That would depend

So if a woman/man has AIDS, they cannot use condoms for marital sex?

That is correct.

Can’t they adopt instead because non-condom use would spread AIDS?

A couple that feels call to adopt can do so at any time. I don’t understand why you are trying to link these two things together. They are separate things.