Homosexual adoption - Abomination or not?

[blackout]

There is different levels of teaching authority. I don't wish to bore you with it and I doubt you care.

My objection was simply aimed at your links to marriage as something definitive.

This IS a Religious Education forum.

No reason you can't educate us.

 

[Drolefille]

How is that bringing up the laws?

Sorry what was the "this" you were talking about then.

How in the world is this inconsistant if you don't even understand how to apply catholic morality? At best you can say we are intolerant, oppressive, or whatever tickles you but inconsistant just smacks of ignorance.

Aw, you keep trying to talk down to me.
It is specifically inconsistent that no other comparable sinful act or state of being up to and including what the church considers to be murder or mortal sin is worth prohibiting the adoption of a child to a family. Only homosexuality. And it's worth losing a contract over. Do feel free to provide a theological explanation for why this inconsistency is somehow perfectly in line with Church teachings in the process.

Spelling it inconsistant smacks of ignorance though, you're right.

I guess that settles that.

Oh you're one of those, huh? Ursaline grade/high school, Jesuit university. I was taught to think and question, it's not their fault that the Church couldn't provide the answers.

Awful funny though from someone who hasn't kept up on his encyclicals for the past 50 years or so.

Well, when sinners is all you have to deal with, I suppose they could just deny everyone, right?

That would be more consistent than what they are doing now. Albeit just as ridiculous. This is the rock that they want to die on, and I'm not going to stop them.

I suspect you are confident with your own conclusions and could only care as much as far as it meets your well educated preconceived notions.

Aw, yeah that's right try and insult me but don't respond to a single thing I actually said. You're really bad at this debate thing.

If you wish to really break these down, go back to your Jesuit buddies and ask them.

Sorry, didn't you know they're big on asking questions there? It's not their fault I couldn't come to the same conclusions they did, they still pray for me, I'm sure. But they'd never tell someone not to ask.

You made it through a whole post without providing an actual response. Bravo. :clap

 

[Quiddity]

I'm not out to make false statements.

I don't think you are either. It's just extremely rare for anyone (even catholics inside the catholic church) to understand these complexities. I realize this might sound like a copout to some, but it's the truth.

 

[Drolefille]

Never heard of it. :areyoucra

Thank goodness you're here to set me straight.

Oh sweet summer child here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanae_Vitae

But it's cool it's not like anyone in charge said anything on the matter or anything. No no, I bet it's just a few theologians who thought that birth control was wrong.

 

[Drolefille]

I don't think you are either. It's just extremely rare for anyone (even catholics inside the catholic church) to understand these complexities. I realize this might sound like a copout to some, but it's the truth.

Wow. Really? Really?

Cop. Out.

Her reference to marriage was specifically touching upon the relevant subject matter of the thread - adoption by couples. And you're utterly unaware of church teaching on the subject but trying to school UV?

The relevant material on birth control is also found in the catechism, Catholic interpretation of the bible and church tradition.

Birth Control | Catholic Answers

Feel free to read up.

 

[Quiddity]

Sorry what was the "this" you were talking about then.

"This" was talking about the ruling that is coming down on catholic charities.

Aw, you keep trying to talk down to me.

It is specifically inconsistent that no other comparable sinful act or state of being up to and including what the church considers to be murder or mortal sin is worth prohibiting the adoption of a child to a family. Only homosexuality. And it's worth losing a contract over. Do feel free to provide a theological explanation for why this inconsistency is somehow perfectly in line with Church teachings in the process.

Spelling it inconsistant smacks of ignorance though, you're right.

Mispellers of the world unite!

You honestly can't see the difference between acts committed by catholics (whatever it might be) and homosexuality? You don't see the difference?

Oh you're one of those, huh? Ursaline grade/high school, Jesuit university. I was taught to think and question, it's not their fault that the Church couldn't provide the answers.

Awful funny though from someone who hasn't kept up on his encyclicals for the past 50 years or so.

If all else fails, ad hominems to the rescue.

Don't be so proud as to fail to embrace ignorance. It's the first step to growing.

Aw, yeah that's right try and insult me but don't respond to a single thing I actually said. You're really bad at this debate thing.

22 and 16 years ring a bell?

You made it through a whole post without providing an actual response. Bravo. :clap

I didn't see anything that warranted a response.

You know where to go.

 

[Quiddity]

Wow. Really? Really?

Cop. Out.

Her reference to marriage was specifically touching upon the relevant subject matter of the thread - adoption by couples. And you're utterly unaware of church teaching on the subject but trying to school UV?

The relevant material on birth control is also found in the catechism, Catholic interpretation of the bible and church tradition.

Birth Control | Catholic Answers

Feel free to read up.

Apparently you are under the impression I deny the Catholic Church has anything to say about birth control. I know you have better reading comprehension then this. Try again without all personal stuff would be nice.

 

[Drolefille]

"This" was talking about the ruling that is coming down on catholic charities.

Which was about the law, that no one else was talking about until you mentioned it.

You honestly can't see the difference between acts committed by catholics (whatever it might be) and homosexuality? You don't see the difference?

CC doesn't only adopt to Catholics. Therefore they are policing non-Catholic couples and claiming that they can only not adopt to gays, not to any other immoral relationship.
The theological problem with homosexuality in the Catholic Church is equivalent to any sort of fornication - sex without the possibility of life is unnatural to the RCC. Homosexuality itself is not a sin, but the sexual act is per the Church itself. Having an abortion would be considered a graver sin due to the murder of a human life, using birth control would be an equivalent sin and an ongoing one as well.

So yes, they're equivalent in the eyes of the Church per the Church herself. Are you perhaps not a Roman Catholic? This would explain a lot of your knowledge here.

If all else fails, ad hominems to the rescue.

Don't be so proud as to fail to embrace ignorance. It's the first step to growing.

An ad hominem is not pointing out that you made a false claim and have failed to correct it.

I didn't see anything that warranted a response.

You know where to go.

You put a lot of effort into not responding. Why not actually address the topic at hand.

I'm sticking around, have the wafers to do the same.

 

[GabrielWithoutWings]

Based upon this and the racial thread, either the OP is a right-wing fundie troll or is honestly the first right-wing New Ager I've ever seen.

 

[Drolefille]

Apparently you are under the impression I deny the Catholic Church has anything to say about birth control. I know you have better reading comprehension then this. Try again without all personal stuff would be nice.

No, I'm under the impression that you were incorrect about Church teachings from the Pope himself.

Something you've neither acknowledged nor corrected. You're in fact, addressing no points other than claiming you know better than everyone else and disparaging the knowledge of two people who specifically have knowledge of Church teaching despite our current lack of belief.

 

[blackout]

I don't think you are either. It's just extremely rare for anyone (even catholics inside the catholic church) to understand these complexities. I realize this might sound like a copout to some, but it's the truth.

Well aparantely YOU understand these complexities though.

So why not at least explain them as they relate directly to the topic at hand.

 

[blackout]

Victor,

I said...

The RC teaches that birth control significantly compromises
every marriage in which it is used,
linking it even to the increase of divorce.

As such it would seem that,
in the best interests of a stable home for the children,
Catholic Charities should pre-screen all couples re. birth control usage.
No children should be adopted out to couples
who approve of birth control,
as it is likely that they may one day use it to compromise their own marriage,
if they are not presently doing so already.

You asked for....

Source?

I gave indirect source...

Just go to any natural family planning session.

I've been to them,
read the books.
Sat through the propaganda.
(which I bought at the time)

Have you?

You then said...

I have, it's an opinion held by many catholics and even some catholic organizations, but that's a long shot from pinning that on the magesterium.

But then Drolefille provided a specific source straight from the magesterium.
The Papal encyclical subtitled "On the Regulation of Birth".

Sorry but Pope Paul VI wrote an encyclical on the subject.

You're criticizing my education and yet don't know of the Humanae Vitae?

There is NO WAY you can hold to your previous response,
in light of Humanae Vitae.

..., it's an opinion held by many catholics and even some catholic organizations, but that's a long shot from pinning that on the magesterium.

Affirmation of traditional teaching
In this encyclical Paul VI reaffirmed the Catholic Church's traditional view of marriage and marital relations and a continued condemnation of artificial birth control. There were two Papal committees and numerous independent experts looking into the latest advancement of science and medicine on the question of artificial birth control,[2] which were noted by the Pope in his encyclical.[3] The expressed views of Paul VI reflected the teachings of his predecessors, especially Pius XI,[4] Pius XII[5] and John XXIII,[6] all of whom had insisted on the divine obligations of the marital partners in light of their partnership with God the creator.
[edit] Doctrinal Basis

Paul VI himself, even as commission members issued their personal views over the years, always reaffirmed the teachings of the Church, repeating them more than once in the first years of his Pontificate.[7]






To Pope Paul VI as to all his predecessors, marital relations are much more than a union of two people. They constitute a union of the loving couple with a loving God, in which the two persons create a new person materially, while God completes the creation by adding the soul. For this reason, Paul VI teaches in the first sentence of Humanae Vitae, that the transmission of human life is a most serious role in which married people collaborate freely and responsibly with God the Creator.[8] This is divine partnership, so Paul VI does not allow for arbitrary human decisions, which may limit divine providence. The Pope does not paint an overly romantic picture of marriage: Marital relations are a source of great joy, but also of difficulties and hardships.[8] The question of human procreation, exceeds in the view of Paul VI specific disciplines such as biology, psychology, demography or sociology.[9] The reason for this to Paul VI is that married love takes its origin from God, who "is love", and from this basic dignity, he defines his position:

• Love is total — that very special form of personal friendship in which husband and wife generously share everything, allowing no unreasonable exceptions and not thinking solely of their own convenience. Whoever really loves his partner loves not only for what he receives, but loves that partner for the partner's own sake, content to be able to enrich the other with the gift of himself.[10]

The encyclical opens with an assertion of the competency of the magisterium of the Catholic Church to decide questions of morality. It then goes on to observe that circumstances often dictate that married couples should limit the number of children, and that the sexual act between husband and wife is still worthy even if it can be foreseen not to result in procreation. Nevertheless, it is held that the sexual act must "retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life", and the "direct interruption of the generative process already begun" is unlawful.[citation needed]
Every action specifically intended to prevent procreation is forbidden, except in medically necessary circumstances. Therapeutic means necessary to cure diseases are exempted, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result, but only if infertility is not directly intended.[11] This includes both chemical and barrier methods of contraception.[citation needed] All these are held to directly contradict the "moral order which was established by God". Abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, is absolutely forbidden, as is sterilization, even if temporary. Therapeutic means which induce infertility are allowed (e.g., hysterectomy), if they are not specifically intended to cause infertility (e.g., the uterus is cancerous, so the preservation of life is intended). Natural family planning methods (abstaining from intercourse during certain parts of the menstrual cycle) are allowed, since they take advantage of "a faculty provided by nature."[citation needed]
The acceptance of artificial methods of birth control is then claimed to result in several negative consequences, among them a "general lowering of moral standards" resulting from sex without consequences, and the danger that men may reduce women "to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of [their] own desires"; finally, abuse of power by public authorities, and a false sense of autonomy.[12]

...and then you move the goal posts,

There is different levels of teaching authority. I don't wish to bore you with it and I doubt you care.

My objection was simply aimed at your links to marriage as something definitive.

... It's just extremely rare for anyone (even catholics inside the catholic church) to understand these complexities. I realize this might sound like a copout to some, but it's the truth.

 

[Quiddity]

Which was about the law, that no one else was talking about until you mentioned it.

Ruling......Laws, same thing....

Just let it go. You've been corrected and can't seem to gather enough courage to admit it. Atleast you have the wafers to stick it out.

CC doesn't only adopt to Catholics. Therefore they are policing non-Catholic couples and claiming that they can only not adopt to gays, not to any other immoral relationship.
The theological problem with homosexuality in the Catholic Church is equivalent to any sort of fornication - sex without the possibility of life is unnatural to the RCC. Homosexuality itself is not a sin, but the sexual act is per the Church itself. Having an abortion would be considered a graver sin due to the murder of a human life, using birth control would be an equivalent sin and an ongoing one as well.

So yes, they're equivalent in the eyes of the Church per the Church herself. Are you perhaps not a Roman Catholic? This would explain a lot of your knowledge here.

Well, at least you got one right. Contraceptives would certainly be an ongoing thing and it's not taken lightly within the confines of the Church. However, a catholic agency is fairly secular and they differ in degree. The Church does not police these agencies to the degree you speak of and it's not going to implement it's authority as if it was the Eucharist (ironically, some homosexuals do take the Eucharist while some contraceptive using heterosexuals are asked not to. But you don't want to hear about that).

An ad hominem is not pointing out that you made a false claim and have failed to correct it.

Which was?

 

[Quiddity]

But then Drolefille provided a specific source straight from the magesterium. The Papal encyclical subtitled "On the Regulation of Birth".

No, he provided the name of an encyclical, nothing more.

There is NO WAY you can hold to your previous response, in light of Humanae Vitae.

What response of mine contradicts it exactly? Be specific.

BTW, none of the links are working for me.

 

[blackout]

No, he provided the name of an encyclical, nothing more.



What response of mine contradicts it exactly? Be specific.

BTW, none of the links are working for me.

See Specifically the Highlights in Red.
(and then probably you should go read the whole encyclical for yourself)

There is NO WAY you can hold to your previous response,
in light of Humanae Vitae.

..., it's an opinion held by many catholics and even some catholic organizations, but that's a long shot from pinning that on the magesterium.

Affirmation of traditional teaching
In this encyclical Paul VI reaffirmed the Catholic Church's traditional view of marriage and marital relations and a continued condemnation of artificial birth control. There were two Papal committees and numerous independent experts looking into the latest advancement of science and medicine on the question of artificial birth control,[2] which were noted by the Pope in his encyclical.[3] The expressed views of Paul VI reflected the teachings of his predecessors, especially Pius XI,[4] Pius XII[5] and John XXIII,[6] all of whom had insisted on the divine obligations of the marital partners in light of their partnership with God the creator.
[edit] Doctrinal Basis

Paul VI himself, even as commission members issued their personal views over the years, always reaffirmed the teachings of the Church, repeating them more than once in the first years of his Pontificate.[7]







To Pope Paul VI as to all his predecessors, marital relations are much more than a union of two people. They constitute a union of the loving couple with a loving God, in which the two persons create a new person materially, while God completes the creation by adding the soul. For this reason, Paul VI teaches in the first sentence of Humanae Vitae, that the transmission of human life is a most serious role in which married people collaborate freely and responsibly with God the Creator.[8] This is divine partnership, so Paul VI does not allow for arbitrary human decisions, which may limit divine providence. The Pope does not paint an overly romantic picture of marriage: Marital relations are a source of great joy, but also of difficulties and hardships.[8] The question of human procreation, exceeds in the view of Paul VI specific disciplines such as biology, psychology, demography or sociology.[9] The reason for this to Paul VI is that married love takes its origin from God, who "is love", and from this basic dignity, he defines his position:

• Love is total — that very special form of personal friendship in which husband and wife generously share everything, allowing no unreasonable exceptions and not thinking solely of their own convenience. Whoever really loves his partner loves not only for what he receives, but loves that partner for the partner's own sake, content to be able to enrich the other with the gift of himself.[10]

The encyclical opens with an assertion of the competency of the magisterium of the Catholic Church to decide questions of morality. It then goes on to observe that circumstances often dictate that married couples should limit the number of children, and that the sexual act between husband and wife is still worthy even if it can be foreseen not to result in procreation. Nevertheless, it is held that the sexual act must "retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life", and the "direct interruption of the generative process already begun" is unlawful.[citation needed]

Every action specifically intended to prevent procreation is forbidden, except in medically necessary circumstances. Therapeutic means necessary to cure diseases are exempted, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result, but only if infertility is not directly intended.[11] This includes both chemical and barrier methods of contraception.[citation needed] All these are held to directly contradict the "moral order which was established by God". Abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, is absolutely forbidden, as is sterilization, even if temporary. Therapeutic means which induce infertility are allowed (e.g., hysterectomy), if they are not specifically intended to cause infertility (e.g., the uterus is cancerous, so the preservation of life is intended). Natural family planning methods (abstaining from intercourse during certain parts of the menstrual cycle) are allowed, since they take advantage of "a faculty provided by nature."[citation needed]
The acceptance of artificial methods of birth control is then claimed to result in several negative consequences, among them a "general lowering of moral standards" resulting from sex without consequences, and the danger that men may reduce women "to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of [their] own desires"; finally, abuse of power by public authorities, and a false sense of autonomy.[12]

...and then you move the goal posts,

There is different levels of teaching authority. I don't wish to bore you with it and I doubt you care.

My objection was simply aimed at your links to marriage as something definitive.

... It's just extremely rare for anyone (even catholics inside the catholic church) to understand these complexities. I realize this might sound like a copout to some, but it's the truth.

 

[blackout]

The acceptance of artificial methods of birth control is then claimed to result in several negative consequences, among them a "general lowering of moral standards" resulting from sex without consequences, and the danger that men may reduce women "to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of [their] own desires"; finally, abuse of power by public authorities, and a false sense of autonomy.[12]

And this is EXACTLY what they taught in NFP.
the danger that men may reduce women "to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of [their] own desires"
Husbands, of course, being also men....
and now I do remember that Humanae Vitae
was the primary source for the moral premises OF NFP.

So it's not just some "catholic organizations" making stuff up.
It was always backed up by official church teachings, ie teachings of the magisterium.

 

[Quiddity]

See Specifically the Highlights in Red.
(and then probably you should go read the whole encyclical for yourself)

There is NO WAY you can hold to your previous response,
in light of Humanae Vitae.

You still haven't provided where I am objecting to this. What you quoted was a response to this links of divorce. I clarified this in post# 278.

...and then you move the goal posts,

By all means, comfort yourself with what you claim to know. After all, you are all about not making false statments. So you shouldn't have a problem where the goal posts go as long as it's accurate.

 

[blackout]

oiy.

I said that the RC teaches that birth control compromises the marital relationship.

It has been shown that this teaching is found in Humanae Vitae, a Papal Encyclical.

Now to go back even further,
I had said that Catholic Charities should not adopt children out to couples who use/are open to using birth control,
because there is a higher likelyhood of marital breakdown,
as the child's new parents will be situationally prone to using one another for immoral sex/immorally for sex.
(or erm, just the husband will use the wife for sex)

Now what EXACTLY is Catholic Charities officially stated reason
for not adopting out to homosexuals?

Is it an issue of morality?
Is it an issue of the sexual morality of the parents?

 

[Quiddity]

oiy.

I said that the RC teaches that birth control compromises the marital relationship.

It has been shown that this teaching is found in Humanae Vitae, a Papal Encyclical.

Now to go back even further,
I had said that Catholic Charities should not adopt children out to couples who use/are open to using birth control,
because there is a higher likelyhood of marital breakdown,
as the child's new parents will be situationally prone to using one another for immoral sex/immorally for sex.
(or erm, just the husband will use the wife for sex)

Now what EXACTLY is Catholic Charities officially stated reason
for not adopting out to homosexuals?

Is it an issue of morality?
Is it an issue of the sexual morality of the parents?

It was noted in post# 207.

 

[blackout]

It would have been considerate to use the quote function.

Purely for religious/moral reasons.

The Vatican put it his way:

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........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.

It would be just as easy for them to come up with some very similar statement
regarding couples who use birth control.

The child will be brought up in an enviornment where at least one parent
sexualizes and uses the other, which is not conducive to the healthy development of the child, (especially a female child),
and where they will be more likely to become the product of a split home,
leaving them without the full experience of motherhood and fatherhood.
or something like that.

But this conversation has been tediously going nowhere for pages now,
and so I take my leave to go do something more fun.