Is adoption sinful?

[kbwall]

I recently learned in the other topic that artifical insemination is a sin because it causes the woman to carry somebody else’s baby.

What about just regular adoption? What is the church’s stance on that?

 

[rev_kevin]

I recently learned in the other topic that artifical insemination is a sin because it causes the woman to carry somebody else’s baby.

What about just regular adoption? What is the church’s stance on that?

If you read the OT you will find out that many barren women used other women to have their child. It was not “artifical insemination” because it was not invented then, it was done the normal way, which to me would be a sin because the husband had to physically have intercourse with the other woman which, IMO is adultery.

Artifical insemination should be ok to the Catholic faith because after all shouldn’t you “be fruitful and mulitply.” And if one can’t be fruitful but wants to multiply there should be no problem.

Now about regular adoption. What makes you think it would be a sin? Arent’ we to take care of eachother? Isn’t a child a gift from God reguardless if its your natural child or one from other people? What about step children? Is it a sin to take care of them like they were your own? Didn’t Jesus have a step father. Joseph? Aren’t we all adoptive children of God? So the simple answer to your question is yes adoption is good not a sin or anything like that.

 

[LilyM]

Regular adoption is fine.

The problems with IVF are problems with some of the procedures surrounding it. For example the indefinite frozen storage, or worse the destruction, of surplus embryos that couples elect not to have implanted. It happens very frequently.

Remember we believe a child is a human from the moment of conception (=sperm and egg uniting). Indefinitely holding a human being in frozen suspended animation is contrary to its dignity as something created in the image and likeness of God with inherent rights to life that begin at conception. And the thought of its being destroyed is utterly abhorrent.

 

[Skeptic92]

I recently learned in the other topic that artifical insemination is a sin because it causes the woman to carry somebody else’s baby.

What about just regular adoption? What is the church’s stance on that?

It’s about as sinful as receiving communion while in a state of Grace and in full communion with the Church. Adoption is the moral alternative to abortion, as their are thousands of couples who can’t have a baby, who will very happily take the chance to adopt a new born.

 

[surritter]

With all respect, Kevin and Lily, you both missed the mark. IVF is intrinsically evil – that means that even if there were no side effects or other “problems with some of the procedures surrounding it” that IVF in itself is still sinful. This is because its very nature divorces the love-giving and life-giving aspects of sexuality. (That same reason is why artificial contraception is sinful; it’s just that IVF is the reverse problem.)

Adoption, on the other hand, has nothing to do with the sexual act. It is merely picking up a parenting role when another family is unable to continue doing so. Ergo, no sin relating to the use of the gift of sexuality is involved.

RevKevin, please read more about the Catholic teaching on this stuff. The desire to have a child or to “be fruitful and multiply” doesn’t mean that anything goes! There is also something called the natural law that is involved here.

 

[joandarc2008]

With all respect, Kevin and Lily, you both missed the mark. IVF is intrinsically evil – that means that even if there were no side effects or other “problems with some of the procedures surrounding it” that IVF in itself is still sinful. This is because its very nature divorces the love-giving and life-giving aspects of sexuality. (That same reason is why artificial contraception is sinful; it’s just that IVF is the reverse problem.)

Adoption, on the other hand, has nothing to do with the sexual act. It is merely picking up a parenting role when another family is unable to continue doing so. Ergo, no sin relating to the use of the gift of sexuality is involved.

RevKevin, please read more about the Catholic teaching on this stuff. The desire to have a child or to “be fruitful and multiply” doesn’t mean that anything goes! There is also something called the natural law that is involved here.

Also for the poster that added certain examples - and I am assuming you are underlining Abraham and Sarah - those were Old Testament examples. It was done as part of a Covenant diectly with God sealed in fire - not just because the couple decided too. These thing cannot be taken out of context.

 

[LilyM]

With all respect, Kevin and Lily, you both missed the mark. IVF is intrinsically evil – that means that even if there were no side effects or other “problems with some of the procedures surrounding it” that IVF in itself is still sinful. This is because its very nature divorces the love-giving and life-giving aspects of sexuality. (That same reason is why artificial contraception is sinful; it’s just that IVF is the reverse problem.)

Adoption, on the other hand, has nothing to do with the sexual act. It is merely picking up a parenting role when another family is unable to continue doing so. Ergo, no sin relating to the use of the gift of sexuality is involved.

RevKevin, please read more about the Catholic teaching on this stuff. The desire to have a child or to “be fruitful and multiply” doesn’t mean that anything goes! There is also something called the natural law that is involved here.

My apologies - there’s stuff on it in the catechism that I hadn’t read.

 

[kbwall]

Regular adoption is fine.

The problems with IVF are problems with some of the procedures surrounding it. For example the indefinite frozen storage, or worse the destruction, of surplus embryos that couples elect not to have implanted. It happens very frequently.

Remember we believe a child is a human from the moment of conception (=sperm and egg uniting). Indefinitely holding a human being in frozen suspended animation is contrary to its dignity as something created in the image and likeness of God with inherent rights to life that begin at conception. And the thought of its being destroyed is utterly abhorrent.

But as far as I know, the suspended animation does not damage them. Granted, indefinite freeze is bad, but as long as the embryos are used, I don’t see the issue. Admittedly I don’t know much about the issue, so I may be forgetting something. And while destruction of embryos is essentially the same as abortion, what is wrong if the couple doesn’t kill them, but has every intention to grow them?

 

[chadathin]

…artifical insemination is a sin because it causes the woman to carry somebody else’s baby.

I believe you (or whoever wrote that initially) are confusing artificial insemination with a surrogate mother. It is also important to differentiate between artificial insemination (where sperm is placed into the reproductive tract of a female) and in vitro fertilization (IVF) (where the woman’s eggs are removed from her body and fertilized in a petri dish) as these two terms are often used interchangeably when they really should not be. BUT, artificial insemination rarely includes a third party (surrogate) mother, while IVF can include a surrogate mother. Both are sinful, however.

Artifical insemination should be ok to the Catholic faith because after all shouldn’t you “be fruitful and mulitply.” And if one can’t be fruitful but wants to multiply there should be no problem.

Yes, the Bible states “be fruitful and multiply” however, they didn’t exactly have artificial insemination when that was written, meaning it might as well be read “be fruitful and multiply…naturally…as God intended” NOT, “be fruitful and multiply…BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY.” Anything otherwise would be messing with God’s will. I mean, the human race has the technology to be fruitful and multiply at an astonishing rate via cloning. But we wouldn’t be “playing by the rules” so to speak. In that process (as in artificial insemination), one is playing God by creating a new life where God hadn’t intended there to be one while using a process that completely ignores God’s original plan (copulation between a man and wife, not wife and turkey baster).

To put it another way: God gave everyone a purpose. However, some people’s purpose does not include fruitifying or multiplying. Just as people are born blind or born deaf or born with a mental handicap, so are people born without the ability to procreate. God made them that way. It’s a difficult idea to accept, but it’s true. However, with artificial insemination, people have found a way to “outsmart” God. They have found a way to take their lives out of God’s hands and say, “Yeah? You might have made it nearly impossible for me to have children naturally, but look at what MAN can do!” And when one willingly turns away from God’s plan like that, I don’t see how that is anything BUT sinful.

Adoption is totally cool, though.

 

[rev_kevin]

With all respect, Kevin and Lily, you both missed the mark. IVF is intrinsically evil – that means that even if there were no side effects or other “problems with some of the procedures surrounding it” that IVF in itself is still sinful. This is because its very nature divorces the love-giving and life-giving aspects of sexuality. (That same reason is why artificial contraception is sinful; it’s just that IVF is the reverse problem.)

Adoption, on the other hand, has nothing to do with the sexual act. It is merely picking up a parenting role when another family is unable to continue doing so. Ergo, no sin relating to the use of the gift of sexuality is involved.

RevKevin, please read more about the Catholic teaching on this stuff. The desire to have a child or to “be fruitful and multiply” doesn’t mean that anything goes! There is also something called the natural law that is involved here.

I understand the Catholic teaching on this stuff. Now although I agree with some of their teachings, I also disagree with some of their teachings. This is on I disagree with so it would be useless for me to read more about the Catholic teaching on this stuff. So if you don’t have intercourse you are not good enough to have a child? Isn’t that the same as birth control? You are denying life. The only reason it was not done back then is because it was not possible back then. I look at all aspects them, use what God gave me, the ability to make up my own mind, not what one religion or person wants me to believe. You see things one way, and I respect that, I see things in a different way.

 

[rev_kevin]

Also for the poster that added certain examples - and I am assuming you are underlining Abraham and Sarah - those were Old Testament examples. It was done as part of a Covenant diectly with God sealed in fire - not just because the couple decided too. These thing cannot be taken out of context.

Yes I know it was done as a part of a Covenant directly with God sealed in fire but if it was good and sealed by God then, why is it bad now? What made God change his mind? When did God say, this is a bad thing? So if God says its OK to have extramarrital relations with someone who isn’t your wife so you can have a child its not considered adultery because God said you can do it and it wasn’t pleasurable. But today you don’t have to have extermarrital relations with a woman in order to have a child and its considered a sin. Whats wrong with this picture. Its ok to have extramarrital sex to have a child back then and its not a sin but today if you don’t have to have extramarrital sex to have a child and use artifical means its a sin. :banghead:

 

[puzzleannie]

I recently learned in the other topic that artifical insemination is a sin because it causes the woman to carry somebody else’s baby.

What about just regular adoption? What is the church’s stance on that?

the two have nothing to do with each other. Of course it is licit and admirable to adopt a parentless child and violates no moral law. That is a huge difference compared to violated the sanctitity of the marriage act as AS does.

 

[davidv]

I understand the Catholic teaching on this stuff. Now although I agree with some of their teachings, I also disagree with some of their teachings.

On what basis do you disagree? What do you know that the Church doesn’t know?

This is on I disagree with so it would be useless for me to read more about the Catholic teaching on this stuff. So if you don’t have intercourse you are not good enough to have a child? Isn’t that the same as birth control? You are denying life. The only reason it was not done back then is because it was not possible back then. I look at all aspects them, use what God gave me, the ability to make up my own mind, not what one religion or person wants me to believe. You see things one way, and I respect that, I see things in a different way.

Until you explain why you know better than the Church, this is all just uninformed opinion.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

I recently learned in the other topic that artifical insemination is a sin because it causes the woman to carry somebody else’s baby.

What about just regular adoption? What is the church’s stance on that?

By adopting a child you are bringing joy and love to a child’s heart even though they are no kin of your own, a most exemplary action. Also the Catholic Church offers shelters for orphaned and abandoned children, offering adoption services.

I understand the Catholic teaching on this stuff. Now although I agree with some of their teachings, I also disagree with some of their teachings. This is on I disagree with so it would be useless for me to read more about the Catholic teaching on this stuff. So if you don’t have intercourse you are not good enough to have a child? Isn’t that the same as birth control? You are denying life. The only reason it was not done back then is because it was not possible back then. I look at all aspects them, use what God gave me, the ability to make up my own mind, not what one religion or person wants me to believe. You see things one way, and I respect that, I see things in a different way.

Q: The Church’s teaching on the immorality of in-vitro fertilization seems cruel and unfair. Don’t married couples have a right to have a child?

A: While the Church’s judgment concerning in-vitro fertilization treatments may appear cruel and unfair, it is not. Children are a gift, not an entitlement. The Church teaches that
[M]arriage does not confer upon the spouses the right to have a child, but only the right to perform those natural acts which are per se ordered to procreation. A true and proper right to a child would be contrary to the child’s dignity and nature. The child is not an object to which one has a right, nor can he be considered as an object of ownership: rather, a child is a gift, “the supreme gift” (58) and the most gratuitous gift of marriage, and is a living testimony of the mutual giving of his parents. For this reason, the child has the right, as already mentioned, to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents; and he also has the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception. (Instruction on Respect for Human Life 8)
The Catechism of the Catholic Church also reminds us that
Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization). . . dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that “entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children.” (CCC 2377)
Further reading: Donum Vitae

Yes I know it was done as a part of a Covenant directly with God sealed in fire but if it was good and sealed by God then, why is it bad now? What made God change his mind? When did God say, this is a bad thing? So if God says its OK to have extramarrital relations with someone who isn’t your wife so you can have a child its not considered adultery because God said you can do it and it wasn’t pleasurable. But today you don’t have to have extermarrital relations with a woman in order to have a child and its considered a sin. Whats wrong with this picture. Its ok to have extramarrital sex to have a child back then and its not a sin but today if you don’t have to have extramarrital sex to have a child and use artifical means its a sin. :banghead:

See above, if that doesn’t work then you’ve got a couple choices: a) continue pounding your head into a wall, b) ask a Catholic apologist, c) pray to God

 

[rev_kevin]

On what basis do you disagree? What do you know that the Church doesn’t know?

Until you explain why you know better than the Church, this is all just uninformed opinion.

On the basis you ask? On the basis that I don’t believe them.Where does it say that I have to believe the CC on everything? Do you believe everything you hear or read? If the CC said the HS guided us to tell you the sky isn’t blue its yellow. would you believe them? If they said Judas was a good follower of Jesus and did no wrong when he turned Jesus in, would you believe them?

Oh I like that, the old, “its just uninformed opinion.” Its only uninformed because its not what the CC says. If you don’t go by what the CC says you are uninformed.
Could be we are informed and that scares the CC.

Because in my opinion they can stretch the truth to fit what they want you to believe. They don’t want you to think for yourself on holy matters because you are not guided by the HS only the higher up like the Pope are. They don’t think you are smart enough to see things for your own self, you need them to do it for you because they know better.

Why do I have to explain why I know better then the Church. How do you know they are right? Because they say they are? Because they say the HS guides them and them only?

You asked and I gave.

 

[joandarc2008]

But as far as I know, the suspended animation does not damage them. Granted, indefinite freeze is bad, but as long as the embryos are used, I don’t see the issue. Admittedly I don’t know much about the issue, so I may be forgetting something. And while destruction of embryos is essentially the same as abortion, what is wrong if the couple doesn’t kill them, but has every intention to grow them?

OK - I’ll bite here - the collection of the sperm is done through Masturbation which is gravely disordered and sinful. Also the fact that the unity of the sperm and egg happen outside of the body in a petri dish is also inherently evil as it separates from the marital act whic is supposed to be both procreative and unitive. However if through no fault of the spouses it cannot be procreative it can still be unitive in nature. By choosing IVF, an inherently evil act that violates both the marriage covenant and life one factors the Holy Spirit out of the equation. That does not even sound like a good thing to do.

Now as far as leaving embryos in stasis - yes they eventually will degrade - it is a long time but it does happen. But even if it didn’t each one is a soul as they are now conceived human beings. How would you like me to tell you that Iwas going to put you a living soul in stasis for x number of years and you had no choice about it but it is convienent for me?

 

[joandarc2008]

Yes I know it was done as a part of a Covenant directly with God sealed in fire but if it was good and sealed by God then, why is it bad now? What made God change his mind? When did God say, this is a bad thing? So if God says its OK to have extramarrital relations with someone who isn’t your wife so you can have a child its not considered adultery because God said you can do it and it wasn’t pleasurable. But today you don’t have to have extermarrital relations with a woman in order to have a child and its considered a sin. Whats wrong with this picture. Its ok to have extramarrital sex to have a child back then and its not a sin but today if you don’t have to have extramarrital sex to have a child and use artifical means its a sin. :banghead:

Because God never said it was OK for everyone - he made the covenant with Abraham in order to have the child so that eventually there could be the twelve tribes of Israel - He did not give everyone carte blanche to commit adultery. As a matter of fact there is a lesson in the same story that it was not a good thing as the slave was kicked out of the home - her son was also promised greatness and we have had 1500 years of war in the Middle East because of it.

 

[rev_kevin]

By adopting a child you are bringing joy and love to a child’s heart even though they are no kin of your own, a most exemplary action. Also the Catholic Church offers shelters for orphaned and abandoned children, offering adoption services.

See above, if that doesn’t work then you’ve got a couple choices: a) continue pounding your head into a wall, b) ask a Catholic apologist, c) pray to God

Well you gave me more than a couple of choices. You gave me a few choices 3 to be exact.

So if you can’t have children the “normal way” your out of luck according the the CC teaching. Children are a gift from God and gifts come in many different ways. If the gift can’t be done in the “normal way” intercourse, then the gift can come in a different way. Why deny a gift, a life, a child to parents who want to have one of their own? Who’s playing God here? Is the CC playing God by saying who can and can’t have a child of their own? Where does God say the only way you can have a child is through intercourse? If the CC denies a couple who can’t have children the “natural way” isn’t that a form of birth control? If today we have the means to give the gift of life to parents who otherwise would not be able to have children wouldn’t that be a blessing from God that there are other way to give his gift? God gave us the ability today to give his gift to those who otherwise would not be able to have his gift of children. Who is the CC to deny God’s gift just because it can’t be done in a sexual manner by intercourse? To me that’s a sin to deny one God’s gift.

 

[rev_kevin]

Because God never said it was OK for everyone - he made the covenant with Abraham in order to have the child so that eventually there could be the twelve tribes of Israel - He did not give everyone carte blanche to commit adultery. As a matter of fact there is a lesson in the same story that it was not a good thing as the slave was kicked out of the home - her son was also promised greatness and we have had 1500 years of war in the Middle East because of it.

And he didn’t say it was ok for Abraham. No where does it say that God condoned Abraham sleeping with Hagar or that it was God’s idea. It was Sarah’s idea for Abraham to sleep with Hagar. It was Sarah’s idea for Abraham to commit adultery. The covenant of a son was not the covenant with Hagar but with his wife Sarah. In Genesis 17:19 God said, “Sarah your wife will bear you a son…and I will confirm my everlasting covenant with him and his descendants. As for Ishmael, I will bless him also…but my covenant is with Isaac who will be born to you and Sarah about this time next year.”

 

[vera_dicere]

Artifical insemination should be ok to the Catholic faith because after all shouldn’t you “be fruitful and mulitply.” And if one can’t be fruitful but wants to multiply there should be no problem.

A guy “auditioning his finger puppets” into a jar and then its contents splurted into the woman with a turkey baster is sort of an offence to the dignity of the human being being willed into existance.

IVF and other “reproductive technologies” show distain for the act of co-creation between God and the married couple, it introduces others into the marital relationship and removes the dignity of the children conceived by eugenics, research, continued froozen existance, abortions in the instance of multiples.

In fact now, there are studies coming out that shows children concieved through IVF are not as healthy as their naturally conceived peers. Lower birth rates have been constantly cited as one issue in these studies.

As for adoption, I don’t see how its sinful, its the biological mother realising that she is unable to care for, or unwilling to care for her child concieved in a sometimes sinful manner and giving her child to another couple to raise. It is the ultimate act of selflessness. I mean, the alternative is she raises the child herself, taking away the benefits a child gets from having a mother and a father in a loving, stable marriage, or she kills the child.

No one fudged with natural law to create that child, a woman committed a sin in some instances, and instead of committing another sin, like abortion, she grew some responsibility and put baby up for adoption.

I’m adopted, and I have met my biological mother, and while I am so greatful beyond words that she didn’t have me sucked down a tube into the trash, I’m also so greatful I was adopted, as her life has not been an easy or moral one. She’s even fallen away from the Church! I often think would I be the Catholic I am today, would I be eternally okay, free of sin, still a virgin, if I had been raised by this woman? She went on to have two more children, to two more different fathers, and one of them very ill whom she did wonders for, but whom died due to the illness a few years ago - but her daughter, who’s now 16, has the same kind of sex mentality that she has that lead to such heartache - and in thsi day and age, the sex mentality the daughter has is also coupled with a pro-abortion mentality, and her mother being a fallen away Catholic, and obviously not educated - she left school early, has not been able to provide a solid pro-life argument to convince her daughter!

Adoption is by no means easy. She was basically shipped by her Catholic parents to a home for unwed girls the moment they found out she was prego. She said she would never have aborted, and did think adoption was best, but for 20 years she wondered about me and the life I had - granted, I think open adoption is something to be weary of given the stories I’ve heard.