Is gay adoption better than being an orphan?

[LisaA]

It would seem that placing a child in such a household creates jeopardy to that child’s soul, as he/she will be nurtured in an environment where intrinsic evil is, for all intents and purposes, a permanent condition.

One could argue the same if a child is adopted by the occupants of a drug den.

Of course there are horrific heterosexual households, but there is nothing intrinsically evil about a monogamous heterosexual marriage – that’s where the discernment of the adoption agency comes into play, to determine if, for example, a prospective parent is hindered by alcohol abuse or insufficiently aware of the grave responsibility of raising a child.

Although an orphanage is not an ideal living arrangement, it is not intrinsically evil. It’s evil in the sense that it falls short of God’s plan for the human family, but good can still come of it by virtue of grace working through those who are entrusted with their care. A same-sex couple has fatally impeded the possibility of being vessels of grace, at minimum, through their rejection of the Natural Law.

:clapping:

Well said and succinctly too! Of course we are all sinners and married heterosexual parents are no exception. However by definition, they are not engaged in same grave sins that exist by definition in the relationship of a homosexual couple.

FWIW I am opposed to singles adopting although I know there is perhaps a better case for this as the single person who remains chaste is not in a state of sin. However not having the financial, emotional, and physical help of a spouse also reduces the child’s security and well being. A wonderful couple in our church adopted two girls who had been previously adopted as babies (from China/Africa) by a lovely single woman…who dropped dead unexpectedly in her late 30s. It’s one thing if you’re Sandra Bullock and have the means to cover such situations, but for the average single person, it does present some real risks for the child’s future.

When considering the welfare of the children, their needs rather than the sometimes selfish desires of the adults should be the priority

Lisa

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It would seem that placing a child in such a household creates jeopardy to that child’s soul, as he/she will be nurtured in an environment where intrinsic evil is, for all intents and purposes, a permanent condition.

One could argue the same if a child is adopted by the occupants of a drug den.

Of course there are horrific heterosexual households, but there is nothing intrinsically evil about a monogamous heterosexual marriage – that’s where the discernment of the adoption agency comes into play, to determine if, for example, a prospective parent is hindered by alcohol abuse or insufficiently aware of the grave responsibility of raising a child.

Although an orphanage is not an ideal living arrangement, it is not intrinsically evil. It’s evil in the sense that it falls short of God’s plan for the human family, but good can still come of it by virtue of grace working through those who are entrusted with their care. A same-sex couple has fatally impeded the possibility of being vessels of grace, at minimum, through their rejection of the Natural Law.

I think the expression you mean to use is “in a state of sin” (eg like remarried Catholics).
“Intrinsically evil” is a moral theology expression that can only be applied to particular human acts. It cannot be applied directly to a relationship such as you are suggesting here.

Thus adultery is intrinsically evil - which is what younger remarried Catholic parents probably do fairly regularly. That is why they are said to live in “a state of sin” and may not receive Communion. However, if they confess regularly and try to abstain (even if they fail) then they may of course receive Communion. So they may not really be all that sinful in the long run before God afterall. It is not for us to judge their sinfulness.
And the same would seem to hold for gay Catholics if they observe the same approach.

So your approach raises some interesting moral questions.
Should the children of remarried Catholics (often children come from both sides) be taken off them and put in an orphanage (or given to a Catholic family not remarried) if this state of sin is so evil?

What about a Catholic gay mother with a child from a disatrous previous heterosexual marriage which didn’t work out for obvious reasons? Say she has custody of the child and eventually finds a long-term financially/emotionally harmonious, peaceful and stable relationship with another woman. Should her child now be taken from her for doing this. Should it be given to an orphanage if a good hetersexual family is not available for adoption?

 

[livingwordunity]

I expect it when I see an atheist arguing against the Church, but Catholics should trust what the Church says about this since Her wisdom in matters of faith and morals come from God. Jesus said about His Church, “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” (Luke 10:16) If a Catholic can’t trust the Church on this how can they have faith to believe in the miracle of the Resurrection and the miracle of the Eucharist? How can a Catholic who thinks the Church is wrong about this believe that the Church is right in Her teaching that bread and wine can transform into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ? Here is what the Church says about it:

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, authored by then Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons:
7. Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition. Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race. The possibility of using recently discovered methods of artificial reproduction, beyond involving a grave lack of respect for human dignity, does nothing to alter this inadequacy.

Homosexual unions are also totally lacking in the conjugal dimension, which represents the human and ordered form of sexuality. Sexual relations are human when and insofar as they express and promote the mutual assistance of the sexes in marriage and are open to the transmission of new life.

As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.

Did forcing Catholic adoption agencies to close help more orphans to get adopted?

Discrimination Against Catholic Adoption Services - USCCB Factsheet
In order to be licensed by the state, Catholic Charities of Boston would have to obey state laws barring “sexual orientation discrimination.” And because marriage had been redefined in Massachusetts, Catholic Charities could not simply limit its placements to married couples. Catholic leaders asked the state legislature for a religious exemption but were refused. As a result, Catholic Charities of Boston was forced to shut down its adoption services.

 

[on_the_hill]

What about a Catholic gay mother with a child from a disatrous previous heterosexual marriage which didn’t work out for obvious reasons? Say she has custody of the child and eventually finds a long-term financially/emotionally harmonious, peaceful and stable relationship with another woman. Should her child now be taken from her for doing this. Should it be given to an orphanage if a good hetersexual family is not available for adoption?

I think a lot of people will say, “Yes.”

 

[on_the_hill]

Since we like to take it to the limit on CAF:What if there are two options:
adoption into a gay household, or adoption into Kim Jung-un’s household?

 

[tm30]

I think the expression you mean to use is “in a state of sin” (eg like remarried Catholics).

“Intrinsically evil” is a moral theology expression that can only be applied to particular human acts. It cannot be applied directly to a relationship such as you are suggesting here.

If the same-sex relationship is sexual in nature, then it is intrinsically evil.

Thus adultery is intrinsically evil - which is what younger remarried Catholic parents probably do fairly regularly. That is why they are said to live in “a state of sin” and may not receive Communion.

Adultery is also intrinsically evil, agreed. It would be irresponsible to place a child in a home where a heterosexual couple is determined to live in a state of adultery.

However, if they confess regularly and try to abstain (even if they fail) then they may of course receive Communion. So they may not really be all that sinful in the long run before God after all. And the same would seem to hold for gay Catholics if they observe the same approach.

Perhaps not, if they are positively attempting to avoid a sexual relationship. However, if I may use the same analogy I used before, this is akin to placing a child in a drug den where the occupants are trying really hard to ignore the syringes loaded with heroine all around the house. Yeah, they might abstain, but common sense is a gift from God, too.

It is not for us to judge their sinfulness.

Our hypothetical circumstance presumes a willing homosexual relationship has been entered into. It’s judge-worthy for the sake of protecting the innocent “little one”.

So your approach raises some interesting moral questions.
Should the children of remarried Catholics (often children come from both sides) be taken off them and put in an orphanage (or given to a Catholic family not remarried) if this state of sin is so evil?

No, because their relationship has a path of normalization through reunion with their respective spouses, annulment, or committing to a platonic lifestyle. Additionally, they can still present the complimentary goods of man and woman in human nature.

What about a Catholic gay mother with a child from a disastrous previous heterosexual marriage which didn’t work out for obvious reasons?

Then she’s in double jeopardy as someone in a same-sex relationship and an adulterer.

Say she has custody of the child and eventually finds a long-term financially/emotionally harmonious, peaceful and stable relationship with another woman. Should her child now be taken from her for doing this. Should it be given to an orphanage if a good hetersexual family is not available for adoption?

The gay mother would hopefully recognize that her priorities changed drastically when she entered into a heterosexual relationship and bore a child. If a divorce was unavoidable for the sake of her own safety and that of the child, it still does not free her to enter into a homosexual relationship to soothe her inclinations. The rights of the child come first, and the child has a natural right to the living arrangement which nurtures best his/her human potential. A woman who knowingly places her child in the midst of certain evil is not fit to parent.

But this is all theoretical, since we don’t invade the homes of people living in SSM and take away their children. There is no shortage of tragedy in the universe, and the tragedy of SSM and adoption can be added to the list of ways in which mankind continues to call down the inevitable Final Judgment on His Creation.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Since we like to take it to the limit on CAF:What if there are two options:
adoption into a gay household, or adoption into Kim Jung-un’s household?

Great sense of humour .
I vote KJ cos the kid will get to play Basketball with US ex pros who are his true best “friends” and money has nothing to do with it.

 

[LisaA]

I think the expression you mean to use is “in a state of sin” (eg like remarried Catholics).
“Intrinsically evil” is a moral theology expression that can only be applied to particular human acts. It cannot be applied directly to a relationship such as you are suggesting here.

Thus adultery is intrinsically evil - which is what younger remarried Catholic parents probably do fairly regularly. That is why they are said to live in “a state of sin” and may not receive Communion. However, if they confess regularly and try to abstain (even if they fail) then they may of course receive Communion. So they may not really be all that sinful in the long run before God afterall. It is not for us to judge their sinfulness.
And the same would seem to hold for gay Catholics if they observe the same approach.

So your approach raises some interesting moral questions.
Should the children of remarried Catholics (often children come from both sides) be taken off them and put in an orphanage (or given to a Catholic family not remarried) if this state of sin is so evil?

What about a Catholic gay mother with a child from a disatrous previous heterosexual marriage which didn’t work out for obvious reasons? Say she has custody of the child and eventually finds a long-term financially/emotionally harmonious, peaceful and stable relationship with another woman. Should her child now be taken from her for doing this. Should it be given to an orphanage if a good hetersexual family is not available for adoption?

Why do you persist in positing scenarios that are remote at best? Your scenario of a “Catholic gay mother” is an oxymoron. If she’s a divorced Catholic woman and suffers from same sex attraction, she should remain chaste and not engage in ANY sexual relationship outside of marriage, much less with another woman.In addition the claim that younger remarried Catholics engage in adultery “fairly regularly” is completely without merit or support.

I also find it amusing that the gays in your plays are all saints whereas the heterosexual are engaged in adultery or other grave sins.

That dog don’t hunt. If you want to have an actual discussion about actual issues and realistic scenarios, please use some realistic examples.

Further your glib comments about “taking children away” from their oh so sinful heterosexual parents are completely lacking in credibility. Do you have any idea what it takes to terminate parental rights? The parent(s) must not only be engaged in truly egregious, cruel and neglectful behavior but they are also given several years and huge amounts of financial and social resources to improve their lives and have the children returned to them.

Make it real or give it up. Your scenarios are like discussing the merits of a cartoon character’s ability to parent a child. I mean what do you think? MIckey Mouse or Donald Duck?

Lisa

 

[on_the_hill]

Great sense of humour .
I vote KJ cos the kid will get to play Basketball with US ex pros who are his true best “friends” and money has nothing to do with it.

I was thinking, it would be hilarious if N. Korea launched a grand scheme to kidnap Rodman and hold him hostage, but no one in the U.S. cared.

 

[on_the_hill]

Make it real or give it up. Your scenarios are like discussing the merits of a cartoon character’s ability to parent a child. I mean what do you think? MIckey Mouse or Donald Duck?

Lisa

Neither. I don’t care much for Disney. However, I think (and not to type on behalf of Blue Horizon) that the rationale for using the extreme scenarios is to find out how far the commitment goes in terms of keeping children out of gay adoptions.

Of course, my own example of Kim is ridiculous. I’ll phrase it this way: Are there *any *circumstances under which people would assent to a gay adoption?

It’s a yes or no question. “Yes, there may be circumstances when placement in a gay household is the better outcome.” Or “No, there are no circumstances when a child should be placed in a gay household.”

I’d like to find out before the thread gets locked.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

If the same-sex relationship is sexual in nature, then it is intrinsically evil.

TM30 I am open to being corrected. But given I studied moral theology for 6 years you will have to forgive me if i ask you to supply more evidence than the weight of your own personal opinion.

What documentary evidence have you to offer that the label “intrinsically evil” can be leigimately applied to anything other than particular gravely disordered acts as specified by the Commandments?

The danger of what you (and others) attempt to do here is to wholly denigrate a much wider reality (a parental relationship) simply on the basis of one part component of that relationship (sexual acts) being astray.

While I am open to that possibility such a judgment cannot be made in an armchair on the basis of any valid theological or ethical principles I am aware of (Catholic I mean).
That judgement can only be made on a case by case basis by empirical investigation.

The Teaching Church certainly does not seem to destroy the whole because of the part as you implictly suggest. Which is why it says “homosexual acts” are intrinsically disordered and always sinful if done freely. To the best of my knowledge theologians do not say this of enduring states in life (eg relationships).

The closest the Church seems to get to the reality you want to push is the appelation “state of sin”. This is a very different beast from “intrinsically evil”.
In a formal “state of sin” one can still be in grace before God and even though some aspects of our state are of obvious moral concern to the Church that by no means implies that such persons cannot overall be a channel of grace and virtue to others (including their children). For example I have nowhere read that the Church wholesale supports the removal of children from prostitutes.

I will not comment on your other statements below as they all suffer from the same “condemn the whole due to the part without looking at individual cases” mentality.

Sexual acts are of course important but disordered ones do not intrinsically contaminate the much bigger reality of relationships as a whole which may be quite virtuous in all other respects. If what you say were true then many heterosexual relationships stand contaminated by the occurence of sexual disorder.

Why do we keep pretending that most heterosexual relationships (including Catholics) do not also contain regular acts of sexual disorder that are also intrinsically evil in nature - masturbation, mutual masturbation, contraception, abortifacients, adultery, felatio and so on. I do not see how these realities intrinsically jeopardise our parenting and the children we bring up?

Yes, particular gay couples may be totally unsuitable for bringing up children - but it cannot simply be so due to the “intrinsic evil” opinions floated here.

If Jesus taught us anything he taught us that we (and our relationships) are not totally defined/flawed by regularly occuring grave weaknesses. There seems to be a high degree of narrow Pharisaism still alive and well in some of the kites flying here.

 

[Stephen168]

Of course, my own example of Kim is ridiculous. I’ll phrase it this way: Are there *any *circumstances under which people would assent to a gay adoption?

Are you assuming all heterosexual couples of been banished from the earth? Or all heterosexual couples are only able to adopt one child?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Why do you persist in positing scenarios that are remote at best? Your scenario of a “Catholic gay mother” is an oxymoron. If she’s a divorced Catholic woman and suffers from same sex attraction, she should remain chaste and not engage in ANY sexual relationship outside of marriage, much less with another womanLisa …

Let me guess - you are white, middle class, and come from or live in a 1st world country?
99% of the world’s population is less lucky than us and has less choice.

.In addition the claim that younger remarried Catholics engage in adultery “fairly regularly” is completely without merit or support.

If I am one of the many, many Catholic couples in a first world country who have the opportunity to divorce and remarry then you will no doubt be romping in bed fairly regularly with your partner who is not really married to you. That is adultery. This reality seems to be obvious to me? Some here would go further and call that an intrinsically evil relationship. Now that is completely without merit or support as far as I can see.

 

[LisaA]

Sexual acts are of course important but disordered ones do not intrinsically contaminate the much bigger reality of relationships as a whole which may be quite virtuous in all other respects. If what you say were true then many heterosexual relationships stand contaminated by the occurence of sexual disorder.

Why do we keep pretending that most heterosexual relationship do not also contain regular acts of sexual disorder that are also intrinsically evil in nature - masturbation, mutual masturbation, contraception, abortifacients, adultery, felatio and so on. I do not see how these realities intrinsically jeopardise our parenting and the children we bring up?

Yes, particular gay couples may be totally unsuitable for bringing up children - but it cannot simply be for most of the “intrinsic evil” opinion floated here.

If Jesus taught us anything he taught us that we (and our relationships) are not totally defined/flawed by regularly occuring grave weaknesses. There seems to be a high degree of narrow Pharisaism still alive and well in some of the kites flying here.

No one is pretending that heterosexual relationships are always pure and perfect and in line with Church teaching. But remember NONE of the homosexual relationships are avoiding sin, just by virtue of their existence.

Further the sexual sins you note are generally done in private and few children have a clue Mommy and Daddy are engaged in oral sex now and then. However with a same sex couple, their relationship IS public. I am not excusing any sins done under the cover of darkness, just pointing out yet ANOTHER remote and mostly irrelevant issue.

How much did your parent’s sex life were you privy to? Mine either. Now I realize it’s unlikely that the same sex couple would engage in sexual activity around the children but their relationship IS public and IS influential on the children’s understanding of normal human relationships.

Further I see no reason, on a Catholic board, to try to see just how far Catholics will go to defend the Church. A reasonable argument or discussion is one thing but making up ridiculous scenarios to make a point seems disingenuous.

Lisa

 

[LisaA]

Let me guess - you are white, middle class, and come from or live in a 1st world country?
99% of the world’s population is less lucky than us and has less choice.

If I am one of the many, many Catholic couples in a first world country who have the opportunity to divorce and remarry then you will no doubt be romping in bed fairly regularly with your partner who is not really married to you. That is adultery. This reality seems to be obvious to me? Some here would go further and call that an intrinsically evil relationship. Now that is completely without merit or support as far as I can see.

Let’s see, instead of responding to my point, you make an assumption about me “romping in bed.” That’s not only irrelevant but disgusting.

Really you need to develop a cogent argument instead of the ad hominems. You cannot claim that Catholics are engaged in adultery absent some statistical information which I suspect would be rather difficult to obtain. That some Catholics are so engaged doesn’t negate the reality that 100% of active homosexuals are engaging in gravely sinful acts.
Lisa

 

[Stephen168]

“Intrinsically evil” is a moral theology expression that can only be applied to particular human acts. It cannot be applied directly to a relationship such as you are suggesting here.

Thus adultery is intrinsically evil -

Would you say sodomy is intrinsically evil?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

hilarious if …but no one in the U.S. cared.

LOL, I did not know that! (Here in New Zealand we do not know anything about Rodman - but this visit made headline news for all the risable reasons).

 

[sesenena]

Last I checked, there is a large surplus of children who need adopted, so large that it exceeds the demand. To say that gay adoption is unacceptable is to say that some kids should rot as wards of the state rather than live in a loving home. Regardless of your feelings on the matter, it has to be better than living with the state.

I do not know how it is elsewhere, but here in Italy there are about twenty-five couples for each child adopted. I know that in poor countries there are many children who are waiting for a family, because adopt procedures are long and complicated; before giving a child to a gay couple would try to encourage the adoption, improving the procedures. give a child to a gay couple means to deprive him of a mother or a father and put him in a morally disordered situation. Moreover, his parents would grow him with the idea that homosexuality is good, which is not true.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Let’s see, instead of responding to my point, you make an assumption about me “romping in bed.” That’s not only irrelevant but disgusting.

Ahem, please reread my contribution .
You will discover that I started with the word “I” (meaning myself as a fairly representative person for the sake of a generic example). I then slipped to a use of the word “you” (obviously therefore meaning “you” plural - this is clearly a generic example remember).

There is no need to take my exception to your views so personally. Lets not rachet up the emotionalism on this thread by this sort of response which you may not realise appears a little histrionic.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Would you say sodomy is intrinsically evil?

Stephen I am not going to directly respond to this particular question. Your very question means you have not carefully read my previous contributions which is surely a reasonable expectation if you wish to be seen as sincerely engaging with another contributor?

The answer is clearly stated in a number of places in my previous contributions. Do come back to me if you do not understand those places or you feel I have been too ambiguous.