The Catholic Church allows adoption. It is forbidden when it is done for unloving reasons. That is odd for you are still obligated by the Christian understanding of God to help people even if you have a bad reason. If the unmarried mother or deserted-wife mother has plenty of relations to help and the men are willing to be there for the child to replace the father in as many ways as possible then the Church allows her to keep the baby if she wants to. Think about this. The baby will have a father and mother if it is given up. So, is it better or worse for her to give the child up? Or is it as good to give it up as to keep it?

It must be better for her to give the baby away for some married couple if marriage is intended by God to ensure that children have a mother and father. It presupposes that relatives helping an unmarried mother is not the same. We see how God’s teaching is ignored by the Church when there would be too much of an uproar if the Church supported it.
Yet the teaching that we must love God with all our hearts and our neighbour as ourselves meaning we cannot love our neighbour if we hide God’s teaching from her or him implies that God’s doctrine should never be hidden for his will comes before everything.

If what is moral is doing what is best and marriage is the only lawful arrangement for having kids, then it is a sin for an unmarried woman to keep her baby unless she is engaged to the father. The Church used to rip babies from their mothers’ arms by force and put them up for adoption which was not surprising with its rigid view of marriage relationships. When Jesus was so strict about marriage that he only allowed separation or divorce without remarriage if adultery had taken place it implies that he does not want children raised except by the father and his wife the mother. Only if something tragic happened to the parents might there be an exception. Beating the children up is not grounds for separation in the Jesus system. Just face it, he didn’t care. Deep down the Church must agree with Jesus and hold that it is a single mother’s duty to give up her child. That it does not shout this louder makes its treatment of homosexuals and contracepting heterosexuals all the more vicious.

Humanists believe that the love between a man and a woman or between a man and a man or a woman and a woman plus their being good people and being in a stable relationship and showing a knack for caring for children is enough to allow them to adopt children. It is better to be chosen by a good gay couple as their child by adoption than to be haphazardly thrown into the arms of a married father and mother who may not want you and who may be alcoholics. The Church commands that society must make sure that straight couples who want to adopt will be thoroughly checked out. It concludes that it is very wrong to say that children are better off with nice gay couples than bad straight ones. The Church is consciously missing the point. The point is children are better off with a good caring gay couple than a straight married couple who are decent but not as nice as the gays. To say that gays cannot adopt is simply saying they are not as trustworthy as anybody else. Some in the Church might go as far as to say that they are not saying that but that it is not the right natural environment. But that amounts to saying just that gays are not trustworthy and are intrinsically harmful to children which is far worse than saying they harm deliberately. It is akin to racism.
Even if research and statistics proved that it was bad for children to be adopted by gay couples the fact remains that even if it were good for the children or if some couples were great parents, the Church would still disapprove. It is religious law it cares about not the children.

It is nice to have your parents checked out for you but wonderful Mother Nature is completely indifferent to the welfare of children when anybody can be a father or mother the natural way.


No Copyright