Why the fuss?

[LaSainte]

I understand your concern and you should believe that we feel it also. We however don’t believe letting homosexual couples adopt is the answer. Not only is that comparable to putting a band-aid on the problem that won’t actually fix anything, but it buys into the idea that the ends justifies the means. Why not advocate for better places for these misplaced kids or push for people to garner a better appreciation for life so there are less kids up for adoption in the first place? Why don’t we make sure kids know premarital sex isn’t worth it, instead of giving them condoms/pill and assume they can’t control themselves? Buying into this mentality of ends justifies means has severe consequences all across the board on a variety of moral issues. My first question to you would be that if the ends can justify the means “sometimes” what authority determines when this is allowable?

None of these things does a single thing to help the kids who need help NOW. Who wants to volunteer to go and tell these kids, “I know you’re going to be bounced from abusive foster home to abusive foster home, never having a family or anyone who loves you or cares about you, but we are working very hard to preach to the people so that in 50 years, hopefully kids like you won’t even exist, and won’t that be better for everyone?”

We need to start living in the world as it IS, not just as we wish it were. Jesus was VERY clear on this point. We cannot just live “as if” and let these children perish at the hands of a horrible system. We sit here and preach all day about being pro-life and then we let these kids rot in orphanages and foster care and eventually in prison.

Look at the studies that show how Kids with gay parents have comparable mental and psychological development, and then look at the studies of kids who grow up in foster care. How much evil is brought into the world because we just let these kids languish in foster care or state institutions and become warped and abusive themselves?

Sometimes you honestly have to step back from your knee-jerk reactions and think about what Jesus would want for these kids. Remember that “Love covers over a multitude of sins” and as I said before, just get the sheep out of the hole.

And to answer your question as to when the ends might justify the means, well, I know that many people want a blueprint of what to do and when, and that especially we Catholics prefer never to have to use our own noggins, but to just reference the old CCC, but the fact is that we have common sense, and that is exactly what Jesus was referring to with the parable of the sheep stuck in the hole. So often we completely forego our God-given common sense in favor for the letter of the law. Unacceptable. When you see a kid rotting away in a broken and abusive system with nobody to love him, and then you see a competent, loving couple willing to raise that child and care for him forever, it is a no-brainer. You do what you need to do to keep that child safe and give him a fighting chance at life. You don’t sit around preaching about how he should never have been born in the first place because of a worldwide false understanding of the purpose of human sexuality. You save the kid and then do what you can to fix the rest.

 

[LaSainte]

I think in this case (due to the circumstances the child would be in otherwise) LaSainte doesn’t think the “means” themselves are wrong.

True, at least, the means are a MUCH lesser evil than the alternative. None of us are raised in an ideal home, but it’s better than nothing. Some parents drink a little too much or are slightly racist or don’t go to church or buy their kids condoms when they turn 15. My parents made tons of mistakes and I make mistakes every day with my son, I’m certain of it, but almost any environment is better than an abusive one or one with NO parents whatsoever. Give the kids a fighting chance.

 

[Debora123]

Answer: An actively homosexual household (an intrinsic evil) is never “better” than a passive evil. Again, that’s not the way Catholic moral theology works. You cannot justify relieving someone’s misfortune by introducing a grave evil into their lives. To believe that it’s “better” or harmless or justified to make exceptions for the homosexual lifestyle (if “they’re nice people because they’re adopting kids”) is to believe deep down that active homosexuality is not always, intrinsically evil. You can’t have it both ways. It’s not intrinsically disordered in some homosexual couples, less disordered in others, not disordered or even forgiven or sanctified in others.

What is it about the word “absolute” that some people have difficulty understanding or accepting? It means no exceptions. What about the word “intrinsic” is difficult to understand? It means essential, not cosmetic.

See my responses on this previous thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=526517

…particularly the part about a single inactive homosexual parent. That is not modeling the lifestyle.

Even heterosexual parents are evaluated for the health (functionality) of their lifestyle. The poster ahs has it correct. A disordered lifestyle introduces dysfunction in an essential way to the child’s life. I don’t care how well, externally, the couple claims to get along. Something is deeply wrong with this picture. I don’t understand why practicing Catholics have difficulty grasping these definitive differences between a heterosexual household, a homosexual household, and a single, celibate person who may have dormant SSA, whose lifestyle is mainstream, whose social circle is exclusively heterosexual (such as the case I brought up on the thread I cited).

To continue to question how essential these differences are is to not really understand (or possibly accept) the Church’s overall, threaded theology on sexuality, marriage, the family and the moral position of a minor child as a product and reflection of all that.

I understand all your points, and they are exactly what would be written in a book/manual about Catholic beliefs regarding this issue.

Trust me, as a Catholic I DO want to agree with everything you say here, and hold on to it tight at all costs - I understand absolutes and I understand intrinsic evil.

But as a human being, however, I can’t help but also look at the whole issue in a more humane way, rather than as a set of strict rules to follow. As a sympathetic human being, I’d much rather see these children being loved by 2 homosexual people than by nobody at all. “Sabbath is for man, not man for the sabbath” comes to mind when looking at it from this perspective. Especially if what LaSainte said is true (children growing up with gay parents do much better and are much healthier in every way than children growing up in an orphanage).

I am not taking a side either way. I am just acknowledging the fact that it is a tough issue and that neither side should be so black and white.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I understand all your points, and they are exactly what would be written in a book/manual about Catholic beliefs regarding this issue.

Catholic beliefs are not “a manual.” They are a way of life, a way of decision-making, a way of discernment about how to live our lives, a way of judging evil from good, a way of understanding how/why some things are always evil and never can be rationalized. That is how we differ from other faiths. If we live our faith thoroughly (not just Sundays), we internalize these understandings.

Trust me, as a Catholic I DO want to agree with everything you say here, and hold on to it tight at all costs - I understand absolutes and I understand intrinsic evil.

If you understood the principles involved, you would understood how “being sympathetic” cannot result in a Catholic compromising core teachings on sexuality, marriage, family, and the rights of the child. You would understand that emotions cannot color moral principles, but rather that sympathy must seek solutions that do not violate those moral principles.

“Sabbath is for man, not man for the sabbath” comes to mind when looking at it from this perspective.

That is not at all what the application of that saying of Jesus means. Sabbath laws, and dietary laws, in the Mosaic framework, had a different level of compliance, according to Jesus, than moral laws did. And we’re talking moral laws here, not dietary & Sabbath observance categories. Jesus reaffirmed Mosaic Law. He didn’t compromise it or put conditions on it. (You can commit adultery if you love the poor. Etc.) He reaffirmed that each moral command had to be obeyed not just in its entirety, but deepy and fully, in its integrity. The Church has continued that tradition of comprehensive compliance and understanding.

I am not taking a side either way. I am just acknowledging the fact that it is a tough issue and that neither side should be so black and white.

Well, I appreciate what you’re saying, and I’m glad you’re not taking the pro-homosexual side. However, understand (agaiin) that Catholicism is black and white in certain areas, and that is again how we are radically different from most other religions.

 

[copperblade]

Elizabeth502,

Thanks for the explanation. That solidly explains why the Church is making a “fuss” over the issue and is unwilling to do things like continuing operating hospitals under laws requiring to acknowledge gay marriage. After reading your post, I have one comment:

Family, in Catholic teaching, is not separate from marriage, which in turn is not separate from differentiated genders. Most importantly, children are at the center of that family: their needs for a mother and a father are the absolute needs in the teaching on sexuality, marriage, and family.

This seems to be the core of the problem: this is also an issue of freedom of religion. We’re talking about legislation that is outside of the Church. Freedom of religion necessitates that other people be able to reject the Catholic Church’s teachings on marriage.

It’s not a teaching that’s subject to exceptions or to defiance.

Of course, are any teachings that are subject to exceptions or defiance? (I am assuming that exceptions within a teaching are not exceptions to a teaching.)

 

[Debora123]

If you understood the principles involved, you would understood how “being sympathetic” cannot result in a Catholic compromising core teachings on sexuality, marriage, family, and the rights of the child. You would understand that emotions cannot color moral principles, but rather that sympathy must seek solutions that do not violate those moral principles.

I understand, I just feel bad for the innocent children in the orphanages, that’s all. The human side of me wants to say it is best for them to have a loving home, no matter what the caretakers do behind closed bedroom doors.

On the other hand though, homosexual couples should not be trying to start families.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Elizabeth502,This seems to be the core of the problem: this is also an issue of freedom of religion. We’re talking about legislation that is outside of the Church. Freedom of religion necessitates that other people be able to reject the Catholic Church’s teachings on marriage.

No. Freedom of religion is the right to practice and believe in the private sphere, and the right to inform and apply one’s conscience in both the private and public spheres. (Because we are not just private individuals, we are also members of communities and citizens of countries; freedom of reliigon neither assumes nor expects the suspension of application of faith to public issues, nor requires that.) We are protected in this country from a secular government dictating to citizens and to institutions what they may and may not believe. That’s what freedom (to practice) one’s religion is.

Neither the Catholic Church as an institution, nor its members as individuals or activist groups, is removing from others the right to believe differently. Rather, it has an equal right to lobby vigorously regarding secular social policy in this country. It doesn’t have any fewer privileges to lobby regarding soical policy than do atheists, homosexual activists, Jews, Muslims, Protestants, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I understand, I just feel bad for the innocent children in the orphanages, that’s all. The human side of me wants to say it is best for them to have a loving home, no matter what the caretakers do behind closed bedroom doors.

On the other hand though, homosexual couples should not be trying to start families.

I feel bad for innocent orphans, too, and I wish that we had the self-sacrifice in this country that was true years ago: when Designer Reproductive Technology was not substituted for compassion. Adoption by heterosexual couples was the default option for infertility, within my lifetime.

It’s a general mindset that is true in the modern era: serving oneself. It’s rather generalized, in fact. It used to be that extended families took more responsibility for those within those families who were suffering; it was assumed that the extended family would be the solution of first resort. So that if a parent died, the other family members would rush in to try to be parental stand-ins, as well as to offer financial support for the newly single parent, if needed. That is no longer true. And that fact in itself has had a very negative impact on society.

 

[Lucky10279]

There is plenty sacred about civil marriage! All marriages outside of the Catholic Church are valid - divorce is not generally allowed even among non-Christians. Only Catholics and Orthodox Christians are bound to a church marriage.

A civil union is not a marriage.

 

[LaSainte]

So how far do we take this? If a homosexual couple raising a child is ALWAYS intrinsically evil and NEVER acceptable under ANYcircumstances as a lesser evil, then let’s take it to the extreme shall we? A child is dying of exposure in an African village and a homosexual couple walks by and offers to take the child in and adopt him. If I am understanding this correctly, Jesus would want us to say “No. Please move along. This child has a right to a mother and a father.” And when the couple says, “This child is dying right here with nobody who will step up and save him!” We are to say,“Then we need to work on eventually creating a culture in which people don’t leave kids in a field to die of exposure, but yeah, the kids dying in fields right now are goners. Just leave that boy where he is.”

This is what we are saying here?

 

[copperblade]

No. Freedom of religion is the right to practice and believe in the private sphere, and the right to inform and apply one’s conscience in both the private and public spheres. (Because we are not just private individuals, we are also members of communities and citizens of countries; freedom of reliigon neither assumes nor expects the suspension of application of faith to public issues, nor requires that.) We are protected in this country from a secular government dictating to citizens and to institutions what they may and may not believe. That’s what freedom (to practice) one’s religion is.

Neither the Catholic Church as an institution, nor its members as individuals or activist groups, is removing from others the right to believe differently. Rather, it has an equal right to lobby vigorously regarding secular social policy in this country. It doesn’t have any fewer privileges to lobby regarding soical policy than do atheists, homosexual activists, Jews, Muslims, Protestants, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.

I apologize, I can see how my comment sounded like we have a moral duty to protect freedom of religion via freedom from religion. I didn’t mean that. My comment wasn’t meant to imply the Church had no right to lobby, or that Catholics should be in favor of allowing gay marriage. It’s just that I can understand why certain Catholics don’t care if rest of the country agrees with our definition of marriage: they don’t think others need to comply with our religious understanding of marriage especially when gay people are already living that lifestyle already from a spiritual standpoint. The institute of marriage as Catholics is a sacrament, but that’s not what the government means when it talks about marriage. It is not illegal to be an unmarried couple living together, with kids, gay or not. Our understanding of the family is not dependent on the legal definition of civil marriage.

And if the main argument that it undermines Catholic marriage, then the obvious question is does it do so more than the current sexual freedom that is enjoyed by the population? Isn’t what is really undermining marriage not this, but rather cohabitation out of wedlock, etc? Ok maybe it’s a moot point, since everyone just “assumes” that those freedoms are a given (i.e. status quo).

 

[copperblade]

On the issue of protecting children… all I can say is as a father I’m more concerned with TV shows like Glee than I am with the legalities of gay marriage. It just seems like we’re focusing on the wrong things.

But I admit, I could just be naive about what this gay marriage thing means and/or not really have the foresight to predict what it will mean in the future.

 

[copperblade]

If a homosexual couple raising a child is ALWAYS intrinsically evil and NEVER acceptable under ANYcircumstances as a lesser evil, then let’s take it to the extreme shall we?

I don’t think that was stated, but rather that homosexuality was intrinsically evil. There is a valid assumption I think that homosexual parents will teach their children that homosexuality is not intrinsically evil.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I don’t think that was stated, but rather that homosexuality was intrinsically evil. There is a valid assumption I think that homosexual parents will teach their children that homosexuality is not intrinsically evil.

It’s an accurate assumption. That is what is taught.

However, that is not the primary basis for the Church’s objection to this arrangement. It is that the household unit itself, as well as the active homosexualty of the parents, is a morally unhealthy household for the child, whose rights are central and supercede the adults’ rights.

 

[SteveGC]

So how far do we take this? If a homosexual couple raising a child is ALWAYS intrinsically evil and NEVER acceptable under ANYcircumstances as a lesser evil, then let’s take it to the extreme shall we? A child is dying of exposure in an African village and a homosexual couple walks by and offers to take the child in and adopt him. If I am understanding this correctly, Jesus would want us to say “No. Please move along. This child has a right to a mother and a father.” And when the couple says, “This child is dying right here with nobody who will step up and save him!” We are to say,“Then we need to work on eventually creating a culture in which people don’t leave kids in a field to die of exposure, but yeah, the kids dying in fields right now are goners. Just leave that boy where he is.”

This is what we are saying here?

First, homosexual couples raising a child is not the intrinsically evil part. Homosexuals engaging in sexual acts is the intrinsic evil. The normalization (via marital legalization) of homosexual “marriage” is not an option for informed Catholics because it normalizes, by association, homosexual sexual acts. This is the issue. The adoption tangent we’ve gotten off onto here is a backdoor attempt to argue in favor of legalizing homosexual marriage, and it blatantly ignores the overarching issue of normalizing grave sin in society.

Your attempt to go to extremes is interesting, if not irrational. So, this dying child is out of luck if the homosexual couple cannot adopt him? Really? A single person can’t adopt him either. Does that mean he’s left to die? Certainly not. All would be bound to provide as much immediate care to that child as possible. Adoption is not the only institution that can bring this child to safety. Despite your extremism here, I assume what you’re alluding to a given scenario in which the child would be “dying in the desert” forever, lest a homosexual couple adopt him. Is that your premise?

And is it really rational?

 

[copperblade]

It’s an accurate assumption. That is what is taught.

However, that is not the primary basis for the Church’s objection to this arrangement. It is that the household unit itself, as well as the active homosexualty of the parents, is a morally unhealthy household for the child, whose rights are central and supercede the adults’ rights.

Can you explain more about children’s rights superseding parents’ rights in general (not necessarily related to this issue)? I’m having a hard time imagining what this means.

 

[copperblade]

First, homosexual couples raising a child is not the intrinsically evil part. Homosexuals engaging in sexual acts is the intrinsic evil. The normalization (via marital legalization) of homosexual “marriage” is not an option for informed Catholics because it normalizes, by association, homosexual sexual acts. This is the issue.

Thanks, that is very clear and to the point. It seems as though homosexuality has already been normalized. So does it come down to a matter of degree? Isn’t the current marriage issue really just a symptom of something that already exists?

Thank you and Elizabeth502 for giving me a clearer understanding of this issue. It does help.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I My comment wasn’t meant to imply the Church had no right to lobby, or that Catholics should be in favor of allowing gay marriage.

But an awful lot of Catholics, including many on this board and undoubtedly some reading or posting to this thread, do believe that the Church has no right to lobby secular society. Therefore, they have a poor grasp of their faith, and/or they reject the key role of their faith in society (and themselves as agents of the same vision the Church has.)

And if the main argument that it undermines Catholic marriage, then the obvious question is does it do so more than the current sexual freedom that is enjoyed by the population? Isn’t what is really undermining marriage not this, but rather cohabitation out of wedlock, etc? Ok maybe it’s a moot point, since everyone just “assumes” that those freedoms are a given (i.e. status quo).

“Because” one situation has not been conquered is not a justification for an equally or morally worse situation being tolerated. That is a logical fallacy. If anything an argument can be made not for the “rather” but instead against the intensification of vulenrabilities to traditional marriage. Yours is not only not a Catholic argument, it is not a logical argument.

 

[LaSainte]

First, homosexual couples raising a child is not the intrinsically evil part. Homosexuals engaging in sexual acts is the intrinsic evil. The normalization (via marital legalization) of homosexual “marriage” is not an option for informed Catholics because it normalizes, by association, homosexual sexual acts. This is the issue. The adoption tangent we’ve gotten off onto here is a backdoor attempt to argue in favor of legalizing homosexual marriage, and it blatantly ignores the overarching issue of normalizing grave sin in society.

Your attempt to go to extremes is interesting, if not irrational. So, this dying child is out of luck if the homosexual couple cannot adopt him? Really? A single person can’t adopt him either. Does that mean he’s left to die? Certainly not. All would be bound to provide as much immediate care to that child as possible. Adoption is not the only institution that can bring this child to safety. Despite your extremism here, I assume what you’re alluding to a given scenario in which the child would be “dying in the desert” forever, lest a homosexual couple adopt him. Is that your premise?

And is it really rational?

Honestly, it doesn’t have to be a rational scenario. Theologically, if it is always wrong for a homosexual couple to raise a child, then it is always wrong no matter the scenario. This is what the Churh teaches about contraception is it not? That even if any child conceived will certainly die, contraception is never permissible. Is that the teaching here as well?

 

[Elizabeth502]

Can you explain more about children’s rights superseding parents’ rights in general (not necessarily related to this issue)? I’m having a hard time imagining what this means.

Are you serious???
You’re telling me that you do not see how transparently a child born into this world has a natural right to an actual father and an actual mother – the ones, who, by copulating, took responsibility for that child’s existence, even before that child was conceived? This is what your Church believes, by the way.