Pope Francis ‘shocked’ by ‘gay’ adoption, urges bishop to speak against it, boldly

From CNSNEWS… I am posting this here because you won’t see it at the National Schismatic Reporter (aka Fishwrap).

Hey! We are still in the Octave of Christmas!

My emphases and comments:

Bishop: Pope ‘Shocked’ By Gay Adoption, ‘Encouraged Me to Speak Out’ [You might ask how it is possible for the Pope to be "shocked", as if he hadn't heard of this before. Where was the Nuncio? Why hadn't the Pope been informed?]

(CNSNews.com) – Pope Francis is “shocked” about legislation in Malta that would allow homosexual couples to adopt children and encouraged the auxiliary bishop of that island nation, Charles J. Scicluna, to “speak out” against the proposal, the bishop told the Sunday Times of Malta on Dec. 29.  [Not exactly the Card. Bernardin "seamless garment" approach, is it!]

In his Christmas Day sermon, Bishop Scicluna [Remember him?  He was hugely acclaimed for sharpening the CDF's responses in the matter of abuse of children.  This is a tough, direct, straight-shooter.] had defended the Catholic Church’s teaching against same-sex “marriage” and gay adoption. When asked why he would discuss such a topic as part of a Christmas homily, Bishop Scicluna said he had met with Pope Francis on Dec. 12 and the pope advised him to speak boldly on the subject. [¡Vaya lío!]

“We discussed many aspects,” said Bishop Scicluna. “And when I raised the issue that’s worrying me as a bishop [gay adoption], he encouraged me to speak out.”

“[T]hat is exactly what I did in my Christmas sermon,” said Bishop Scicluna. “My sermon was not about the rights of gay people but about children’s rights.”

[...]

Pope Francis, as the archbishop of Buenos Aires and Primate of Argentina, said in July 2010 that same-sex marriage and adoption of children by gays will “seriously harm the family.

[...]

Cardinal Bergoglio also said, “Let us not be naive: this is not simply a political struggle, but it is an attempt to destroy God’s plan. It is not just a bill but a ‘move’ of the Father of Lies [Satan] who seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.”  [B-b-b-b-but Pope Fluffy!  Wh-who are we to judge?  Friends, I have been saying it all along. When you set aside the home-spun, off-the cuff stuff, Pope Francis is as hard as nails when it comes to moral and doctrinal issues.  The catholic Left is going to turn on Pope Francis one of these days.]

[...]

A pattern is emerging.  Remember that recently the Pope affirmed to Card. Meisner that there will not be Communion for the divorced and remarried.

“But Father! But Father!”, I can hear some of you say, “What is the Pope doing here?  Why does he seem to say one thing and then he says something like this?  What’s going on?”

I think that Francis wants bishops to recover their episcopal backbones and speak boldly in their dioceses about these issues and not just rely on the Pope do the heavy lifting from Rome.  Francis is possibly trying to stiffen episcopal spines and to make the the papal spine a little less of a lightening rod.

UPDATE 1 Jan 2014 0608 GMT:

Still nothing from the Fishwrap about Malta!

MALTA WATCH!  DAY 1

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in "But Father! But Father!", Fr. Z KUDOS, Hard-Identity Catholicism, Just Too Cool, Liberals, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity, Pope Francis, The Sin That Cries To Heaven For Vengence, ¡Hagan lío! and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

68 Responses to Pope Francis ‘shocked’ by ‘gay’ adoption, urges bishop to speak against it, boldly

  1. Theology Nerd says:

    Now will Pope Francis be in danger of being banned by A and E? Couldn’t resist! ;)

    Fr. Z's Gold Star Award

  2. Supertradmum says:

    Excellent. I like him more and more…submarine tactics are fine, as all the TLMers know.

  3. Lisa Graas says:

    Indeed. Where was the Nuncio? Thank you, Pope Francis.

  4. frjim4321 says:

    I would certainly agree that all things being equal (an important requirement) the ideal environment for children in their most formative years would be a home in which the mother and father are in a healthy marriage to one another. My rationale is simple: Heterosexual marriage, or at least a heterosexual relationship, is the most likely future adult relationship modality for any child, and it would be good to present a worthy model for that while the child is at a young age.

    That having been said it is only reasonable to allow that it is far better for a child to have a gay parent, or a pair of gay parents, who love the child and provide a safe environment for the child, than for that child to be subjected to one foster family after another without ever having a sense of home or of being loved. In other words, it is far better to be loved by a gay parent or gay parents than not to be love at all by anyone.

  5. RuariJM says:

    Amidst all the excitement about Time naming Pope Francis its ‘Man of the Year’ I did take a moment to suggest that, sooner or later, it would be discovered – and widely reported – that the Pope is, indeed, a Catholic, and that 2014 might turn out to be the Year of the Backlash.

  6. RuariJM says:

    frjim 4321 -

    While taking your point about loving family, etc, I am not aware that there is a shortage of ‘straight’ couples seeking to adopt. I am aware of councils and agencies (in the UK) throwing all sorts of obstacles in the way, requiring all manner of hoop-jumping and then saying they cannot place children with families, but the evidence is very strongly that this is smoke and mirrors stuff. even being a Catholic can be enough to have you brushed aside as ‘unsuitable’.

    The need is for children to have loving families and I am deeply concerned that there is more in the way of social engineering going on than genuine care.

  7. Dan says:

    “Not exactly the Card. Bernardin ‘seamless garment’ approach, is it!”

    In fact, I would say this is exactly the ‘seamless garment’ approach. I hope more and more bishops continue to speak more and more boldly about the fullness of the Catholic vision, and to encourage lay people to become joyful and creative witnesses to that vision.

  8. CrimsonCatholic says:

    That having been said it is only reasonable to allow that it is far better for a child to have a gay parent, or a pair of gay parents, who love the child and provide a safe environment for the child, than for that child to be subjected to one foster family after another without ever having a sense of home or of being loved. In other words, it is far better to be loved by a gay parent or gay parents than not to be love at all by anyone.

    That’s a big red herring . Why do you just seem to assume that children are abused in foster care, and that they are safer with a homosexual couple? Could the gay couple abuse the child just as much if not more, considering the unnatural relationship of the homosexual parents?

    [EVERYONE: If you are addressing someone specific, lead off with the name/handle of the commentator. Then include your message and keep your quotes to the point, brief.]

  9. McCall1981 says:

    Very glad to read this.

  10. wmeyer says:

    There is no need for homosexual couples to be permitted to adopt children; there are many heterosexual couples with spotless records who have waited far too long for the opportunity to adopt.

    As was pointed out in another thread–perhaps not here–in the last few days, the rights of a child to a healthy home environment trump the desires of any couple to adopt.

    As a counter-argument, I saw someone proposing a case in which a widower might subsequently take a homosexual partner. The question then asked was whether the state should remove his child(ren) from that environment. It’s another red herring. The instances in which a state should presume to interfere in the life a family can and should be rather narrowly defined. Although I suspect that the case offered is a rare one (no, frjim, I have no hard data), I would consider that in such a case, barring child abuse, removing a child from a birth parent is the greater evil.

  11. samwise says:

    From Bergoglio’s July 5th message:

    “No podemos enseñar a las futuras generaciones que es igual prepararse para desplegar un proyecto de familia asumiendo el compromiso de una relación estable entre varón y mujer que convivir con una persona del mismo sexo”
    http://www.arzbaires.org.ar/inicio/homiliasbergoglio.html

  12. AngelGuarded says:

    First this, then today we find via a link on DrudgeReport to a Reuters story: “It’s official, Pope has not abolished sin.” Just as you predicted Fr Z, the more they learn that the Pope is Catholic, the less “in love” with him the left will be. Turns out the fluff only exists in liberal perceptions. Happy New Year!

  13. RJHighland says:

    The statement you made about this being an effort by Pope Francis is very intriguing. I pray you are right. I think more personnel responsibility and accountability for diocesen bishops is sorly needed. Bishops were to be guided by and answer directly to the Pope not regional Conferences of Catholic Bishops. frjim4321 at least you are consistant in your modernist views, wrong but consistantantly wrong and predicatable. With Pope Francis your never sure what he is going to say about a given subject at any given moment and what he truly is saying. This time he appears to be very clear on what he is saying and it is orthodox yet you personally disagree, interesting.

    [EVERYONE: If you are addressing someone specific, lead off with the name/handle of the commentator. Then include your message and keep your quotes to the point, brief.]

  14. Uxixu says:

    The demographics of homosexuality make adoption irrelevant in the statistical picture. Anecdotally, I’m sure there are a few happy approximation of families while I also fear there are more than a few anecdotal horror stories of abuse.

    Just as with the mockery of marriage, the ideal of a father and mother should be exalted and while other arrangements might be regrettably the best possible, they shouldn’t be winked at, much less encouraged.

  15. wmeyer says:

    To underscore what I said earlier, which may have been too mildly phrased: I can find in the Constitution no right to adopt. The adoption of a child must therefore be viewed as a privilege, and subject to scrutiny, as determined by duly constituted authority.

  16. netokor says:

    “In other words, it is far better to be loved by a gay parent or gay parents than not to be love at all by anyone.”

    frjim, giving a bad example is not being genuinely loving to anyone, and certainly not to innocent children whose consciences must be formed by truth.

    [EVERYONE: If you are addressing someone specific, lead off with the name/handle of the commentator. Then include your message and keep your quotes to the point, brief.]

  17. JKnott says:

    In response to the comment , “That having been said it is only reasonable to allow that it is far better for a child to have a gay parent, or a pair of gay parents, who love the child and provide a safe environment for the child,”
    What level of “love” is being spoken of here?
    Is setting an example of a disordered relationship based on perverse sex a loving and safe environment? Think of the tremendous emotional conflict children who naturally love their homosexual “parents” must experience in trying to live a chaste and virtuous life.
    Love wants the best for another and as Catholics at least that means sanctification and eternal salvation which isn’t just about comfey luv.

  18. Johnno says:

    frjim4321

    The evidence is already in. It is far far FAR more risky & dangerous to leave children in the dysfuntional homes of sodomites. Many of whom only see the child as a product that can be procured for the sole sake of decoration for their fantasy imitation of marriage. Just ask the children who were actually raised, who were abused or simply used as a political shield against criticism of their ‘parents’ lifestyle choice, and whom received more neglect, experienced more dysfuntional homes with multiple changing partners, and even experienced greater scrutiny, punishment, etc. due to overdemanding expectations of the sodomite parents who expect their procured children to accept their relationship when every child can naturally see that something isn’t quite right, which only leads to more psycholigal abuse and confusion while growing up. So, NO, it is conclusively not better.

  19. jhayes says:

    samwise wrote: From Bergoglio’s July 5th message:

    I thought I had missed something recent, but I see now that that is a quote from a three year old (2010) letter by then Cardinal Bergoglio to a group that had planned a demonstration in Buenos Aires against the law approving same-sex messages.

    As he said in the letter:

    “Sé, porque me lo has expresado, que no será un acto contra nadie, dado que no queremos juzgar a quienes piensan y sienten de un modo distinto.
    [...]
    Te encargo que, de parte de Ustedes, tanto en el lenguaje como en el corazón, no haya muestras de agresividad ni de violencia hacia ningún hermano. Los cristianos actuamos como servidores de una verdad y no como sus dueños.

    July 5, 2010 Letter

  20. jhayes says:

    When you land at that page, click on the link for:

    ” Carta del Sr. Arzobispo al Dr. JUSTO CARBAJALES, Director del Departamento de Laicos, por la ley de matrimonio para personas del mismo sexo .”

  21. Mike says:

    A Te Deum, already in order for favors received during AD 2013, seems especially appropriate.

  22. Supertradmum says:

    I was in Malta three times this past year and the people do not want ssm or homosexual adoption. Just like in Ireland, there is no longer a democracy in Malta, but only yet another government following the EU directives from The Hague.

    Small interest groups have pushed the envelope. Bishop Charles J. Scicluna is a good man and a real leader. Sadly, as in other European countries, the youth have fallen away in droves and the country is no longer “Catholic”.

    As I wrote on my blog, tears for Malta.

  23. tcreek says:

    A few months ago, there was a heartbreaking picture and quote from a young adopted elementary schoolgirl who had two gay men as “parents.” She said at school, “I wish I had a mother.”

  24. frjim4321 says:

    To everyone:

    I agree that it would be worthwhile to have some statistics regarding the number of children awaiting adoption and the number of parents wishing to adopt. And it would be helpful to have some accurate accounting of same-sex parents being deferred adoption if standards imposed on gay parents were being relaxed.

    I also agree with several commentators that the emphasis should be on the needs of the children and not on the “right to adopt.”

    A couple commentators seemed to suggest that children with gay parents would automatically be subjected to a greater risk for abuse. I’m not aware of any data that would support that suggestion.

  25. frjim4321 says:

    same-sex parents = OPPOSITE sex

  26. MarkG says:

    If people don’t want gay couples to adopt kids (or take in foster kids), wouldn’t a simple solution be for them to just be willing to adopt or take in foster kids. Wouldn’t that solve the issue?
    Another problem is that the vast majority of people who want to adopt want a baby and are afraid to take in older kids.
    I hope the Bishop also pointed out these facts in his Christmas sermon and encouraged more Catholic families to take in kids, especially older kids.
    I know of quite a few gay couples (and gay singles) who have foster or adopted kids.
    I know of one whose foster son serves as an altar boy at TLMs.

  27. wmeyer says:

    MarkG: While the gay lobby pushes for SSM with all the rights of a real marriage, I am afraid that adoption agencies will be pushed into favoring such couples in the name of “diversity” and “rights”, even over qualified (heterosexual) married couples.

    In my experience knowing quite a few homosexuals in my life there are very few I would have considered as acceptable candidates to raise a child. And I’m not speaking of any risk of molestation–I have no statistical data on such concerns. Promiscuity, however, was nearly universal, as were inappropriate public displays. At best, they would have been poor role models even for simple matters of public deportment.

  28. Kathleen10 says:

    I once wondered if it were possible that Pope Francis could be, or was, naive. I cannot imagine such a thing in a former Archbishop of a major South American city, but, I don’t know anything. Hurray for his words on this topic, and thank God. This is going to make some Bishops squirm like itchy bear cubs. I mean, now what. We’ll see, but that is hopeful.

    @frjim. We had a gay male couple in our state who were the poster boys for adoption by the media. Oh the newspapers had such a time doing multi-page stories on how lovely it all was. I believe they adopted four boys from different homes. They were later shown to be neglecting and sexually abusing some if not all of them. I know this doesn’t prove the rule but how can anyone as a clergy member deny the reality about the gay predation particularly after what has occurred in our own church? I mean, really, do we any of us need DATA to better inform what can be seen plainly with the eyes and ears if we just look around and read the news? Anecdotal information may not pass the data test but we can surmise, deduce, and come to reasonable conclusions based on what we see every day. What “data” have we that demonstrates running with scissors is not a good idea? Juggling chain saws? Pinching pit bulls? Yet we tend to think these are bad ideas because we have made conclusions about scissors, chain saws, and pit bulls. It doesn’t mean that there are no exceptions, but it does mean we need to recognize dangers without waiting on data, and that judgments can be made that are reasonable and rational, without data.
    We stand around talking about data while children are permanently subjected to a life without either a mother or father, and are deprived of the normal experience that will form their entire lives. Children, including infants, are being sexually molested. Yes. That’s ugly. I hate it. But it’s reality. It has happened, and is happening, while we put our fingers in the air and see which way the wind is blowing. It blows ILL for children, that’s how it’s blowing, and people who minimize the danger to children and look the other way while this is promoted and touted as equal to a child growing up with a mother and a father are also responsible for it. Responsible I say. Because that gets “out there” and influences the culture. Coming from clergy it is even more serious and dangerous. You have influence the ordinary person does not have.
    Children unfortunate enough not to have responsible parents are not “better off” in a home with gay parents. We are in error to think of children as “booby prizes” we award to gay couples because “nobody else will want them”. To compound a child’s misfortune at having irresponsible or absent parents we ought not to put them in harm’s way, or at the least in a very, very experimental situation that contradicts God’s plan, and most cultural realities since forever.
    We are leaving them to deal with all that entails in this grand “social experiment” and we smile while we pat ourselves on the back and enjoy how open-minded we are! Knowing one or two caring couples who are able to pull off a good image or even some of the reality is not nearly enough reason to begin to even contemplate doing this at all. It is so easy to say it is “good” for this child or that child, but children are not toys for us to observe and see what happens when we diddle with radically altering our entire foundational assumptions about what constitutes a healthy “family” and how a child will fare without the model of mother or father. We don’t have that right, none of us.

  29. Peter in Canberra says:

    I suppose one might surmise that Pope Francis was particularly shocked that this could occur in such a Catholic country. He should be aware of it from his home country surely – legislation to allow adoption by homosexual couples generally precedes legislation to recognise homosexual unions, and the latter already happened in Argentina if I recall correctly. It is the order it has followed in Australia. In fact one may surmise that most local adoptions will end up being pushed in the homosexual couple direction because the dialogue with prospective parents will include “what are your views about homosexuality – do you see it as a normal expression of human love”. If you answer in a traditional way, your file will hit a brick wall.

    The bishops and the church around the world have sat by while this cancer has advanced to a point of unstopability. And any moral capital that the church might have applied has been squandered through venal and cowardly approaches to the abuse crisis.

  30. jhayes says:

    In the USA in 2012, fewer than 60 percent of children aged 0 to 17 years lived with two married biological or adoptive parents. If you add in cohabiting parents, and stepparents, the percentage of children living with two parents rises to 69 percent.

    That leaves 24 million children (31 percent) who do not live with two parents of any kind. This is a much larger scale problem than the few children who may be adopted by same-sex couples.

    Statistics

  31. Mariana2 says:

    We have adopted from Russia. Even if this country (Scandinavia) is talking about allowing homosexuals to adopt, the countries from which the adoptable children come (there are none available for adoption here) simply refuse to allow “their” children to be adopted by such couples. Which is very good, they at least are not as “progressive” as Europe!

  32. Mariana2 says:

    frjim4321 says:
    “….That having been said it is only reasonable to allow that it is far better for a child to have a gay parent, or a pair of gay parents, who love the child and provide a safe environment for the child, than for that child to be subjected to one foster family after another…”

    With respect: rubbish!

  33. frjim4321 says:

    “With respect: rubbish!” – Mariana2

    So, do you think an orphan would rather cycle through a an series of foster homes rather than be adopted into a loving home with (a) gay parent(s)?

  34. lana says:

    Perhaps Pope Francis was surprised that they are allowing adoptions to gay couples without even legalizing same-sex marriage.

  35. acardnal says:

    jhayes wrote, “This is a much larger scale problem than the few children who may be adopted by same-sex couples.”

    I am not sure your comment is germane to this post. Whether 100 percent or 1 percent of children reside with their biological parents is not the Pope’s or the Church’s point here. Rather, it is immoral for children to be raised by two homosexual adults in a relationship because “it is an attempt to destroy God’s plan” and will “seriously harm the family” as Cdl. Bergoglio remarked above. Every effort should be taken to prevent homosexual couples from adopting and raising children.

  36. frjim4321 says:

    acardnal:

    ” Every effort should be taken to prevent homosexual couples from adopting and raising children.”

    At the expense of leaving children without parents?

    I have a hard time seeing our new pope being that cruel and heartless.

  37. Janol says:

    Peter in Canberra: According to Wikipedia (“LGBT rights in Argentina”), civil unions were allowed in Buenos Aires in 2003 and ssm was legalized in Argentina in 2005 with the “same benefits and protections as opposite-sex couples (including adoption).” Argentina was the first Latin American country to legalize ssm.

  38. TNCath says:

    Sigh. I hope the bishops take this to heart.

  39. Kensington says:

    frjim4321:

    When is this moment when children are “left without parents” and must therefore be turned over to homosexuals to be raised? Does it happen at 3 months? 6 months? 3 years? 5 years?

    When exactly is this moment? Because it seems to me that maybe we can’t define that moment, and thus we shouldn’t give up on finding them suitable parents. The energy should be spent on trying to keep finding them parents rather than finding excuses to hand them over to homosexuals.

    Because it simply cannot be good for children of any age to have their sense of normalcy warped by two daddies or two mommies. Not if we want what’s best for them in the eternal scheme of things.

  40. Peter in Canberra says:

    frjiom4321
    that logic has been used by the LBGT lobby to enormous effect. So hard to argue against without seeming so ‘not nice’. Relativism and situational ethics at work. However, that logic could take us to some weird places.

    And on a practical note, I wonder whether your postulated scenarios are realistic. In this country, the foster parent and adoption ‘streams’ are very different. There is rarely an option for adoption of the fostering stream. And if there is, there will be a larger pool of ordinary couples seeking to adopt, even just statistically. (however the advent of IVF, with nary a word of warning on offer from the Church one must also note, has lessened the number of couples who pursue adoption).

    And, make no mistake, this is all part of a bigger strategem to normalise LBGT.

    Janol
    so Pope Francis ought not find it a surprise in the general sense. Other blogs have noted his ‘pragmatic’ approach as archbishop, prior to his election as pope.

  41. robtbrown says:

    It’s hard to believe that the pope was shocked about this. Maybe the shock was that Malta is one of the most Catholic countries in the world. A remarkably high per cent of Catholics there are daily communicants.

  42. wmeyer says:

    frjim said: “At the expense of leaving children without parents?”

    First, you must establish that there are no qualified heterosexual couples with applications unfulfilled. Until that point, you’re not “leaving children without parents.”

  43. MrTipsNZ says:

    frjim4321
    Yes, not allowing homosexuals to adopt children will result in children without parents. That’s why the waiting list for adoptive parents is so long in many western countries.
    Your arguments on this are lame and pathetic. I can think of no other way of describing them.

  44. frjim4321 says:

    Think the waiting lists are for babies. Older kids are harder to place. Especially non-white. My former seminary classmate (never ordained) adopted a 11 and 14 year old. I don’t think many straight people were standing in line. He is a great dad and giving these kids a shot at life.

  45. Nan says:

    Does this mean the octave of fluffiness is over?

  46. netokor says:

    frjim, even if you think your friend is a “great dad,” he is still living and promoting a lie–rebelling against his God-given nature–and you still cannot bring about good by means of evil. You insist that the homosexual lifestyle be accepted in absolute opposition to the teachings and wisdom of our Holy Catholic Church. You should obey these teachings and have faith ultimately in Divine Providence. It seems no one can help you change your mind. I pray that God will some day. By cooperating with the homosexual agenda you are risking the eternal salvation of many, including your own.

  47. frjim4321 says:

    netokor, the man is gay, he is not partnered, and he is a single parent.

    So, actually, he is not living in opposition “to the teachings and wisdom of our Holy Catholich Church.”

  48. Lin says:

    Very interesting comments! I am currently on pilgrimage in the Holy Land with a priest who lives in Rome (American citizen), 42 years old, conservative, traditionalist, wears the Franciscan robes, loves his vocation and he assured me that the Pope is not an extremist. His style is very different but the results will be the same. I have known this priest since 2009 when he moved to Rome and I have confidence in his judgement. Praise the Lord!

  49. wmeyer says:

    frjim said: “the man is gay, he is not partnered, and he is a single parent.”

    I do not see in that the word “chaste”, nor any affirmation that he intends not to succumb to the gravely disordered acts of homosexual practice.

  50. SKAY says:

    frjim

    My question would be the same as wmeyer. Is your homosexual friend living a celibate life?
    If so that would seem to be a different situation than what the gay lobby is striving for. They are also working in other areas to lower the age of consent.

  51. Imrahil says:

    So, do you think an orphan would rather cycle through a an series of foster homes rather than be adopted into a loving home with (a) gay parent(s)?

    Dear @Fr Jim,
    this is an interesting question.

    It requires for assumption, of course, that no loving married couples willing to adopt are available. This hypothesis is well known to be factually incorrect, but (and I’m being serious) in other cases, it is often a surprise how much theory matters. Still, it should be noted that married couples must be preferred to unmarried couples and singles just as much as decent people must be preferred to habitual criminals and people with sufficient wealth for the upbringing must be preferred to poor people. It’s because adoption is to be for the good of the child.

    But, let’s grant the assumption, and still assume (quite likely in my view), that the homosexuals in question are ignorant that the Church teaching about their actions being immoral is the truth? (Particularly subjectively immoral people are unfit to receive adoptive children, but about mere objective immorality that’s not so clear.)

    Interesting question.

    I’d off-the-cuff prefer the foster home or the orphanage, because it has a rather natural feeling to it, and because the child is less likely to be presented homosexuality as a normal lifestyle. But as I said, interesting question. (Most of the things I said here I would not say under clear name.)

  52. Imrahil says:

    A homosexual who lives chastely is a quite different question. I’d tend to say he is just as qualified as a single man (viz., married couples available, not at all, otherwise yes). On second thinking, how much is he marked by the subculture (though he has renounced the sin), and consequently how much can he represent fatherhood? (I’m not saying, not at all, but in choosing we have to not overlook a defect present in one and not present in the other.) Maybe even a chaste homosexual would have to see a heterosexual single preferred to him. I don’t know.

    It’s, as I said, an interesting discussion. Only that you can’t really discuss it because if you consider both directions as you should, any second some homosexual will feel insulted.

  53. Imrahil says:

    Older kids are harder to place.

    Good point.

  54. Priam1184 says:

    I cannot see how a society that allows two adult homosexual men to be able to ‘adopt’ a twelve year old boy can hope for too long to escape its own complete dissolution and annihilation. This is nothing more than social despair. And Father, didn’t you list Malta as one of your Catholic ‘redoubts’ in a poll question a while back?

  55. Priam1184 says:

    @Imrahil I am sorry to inform you that it is not really a ‘subculture’ anymore. While practicing homosexuals are still an infintescimal (though growing incredibly fast) minority in our society, their influence is widespread enough now in all of the arenas that permeate our culture (entertainment, politics, sports, ‘journalism’) that have now become in large part definers of what American mainstream culture is in the year of Our Lord 2014. I mean think of what has been accomplished from the militant homosexual point of view: marriage between two men and marriage between two women. Even in the dark and pre-Christian pagan past where homosexual behavior was rife and commonplace, the idea of two men getting ‘married’ would have been seen as completely absurd and ludicrous. Our society only thinks it can get away with this lunacy because it is fantabulously rich; this is what all that wealth generated by the precious free market has given us.

  56. Kathleen10 says:

    There have been studies that indicate negative personality tendencies which would be very problematic for a child when it’s the child’s needs that are paramount, not a needy adults. Factors such as the higher level of domestic abuse inherent in a home with a same-sex couple are one. Multiple partners is another, as fidelity appears to be a particular challenge. A tendency toward narcissism is another. No one is going to consider these anymore, but that does not mean they do not exist. This was part of the reason why, until they caved to pressure, the APA considered homosexuality a disorder.

  57. netokor says:

    frjim, you say “the man is gay, he is not partnered, and he is a single parent.”
    If there is only good in this situation, why do you bring up that he is gay? Why this insistence on a factor that should be completely irrelevant? I am sure that there are single kleptomaniacs or alcoholics who can be good parents, but why bring that up, unless you want people to accept particular disorders.
    God bless you, and a Holy Happy New Year to you. May the Lord guide always your compassion.

  58. Imrahil says:

    Dear @Priam1184,

    what I tried to express with the word “subculture” was general straits of personality a homosexual may acquire. I do not claim to know much about the matter, though. What I tried to express with this word was the concern for which the Church has decided to never allow a former homosexual, however chaste, to the priesthood. For better or worse (the decision is surely one that allows divergence of opinions), but the concern is certainly a valid one, and this I meant.

    In an aside answer, some points.
    1. There does exist such a thing as a homosexual subculture, which is why a “gay pub” located in a “gay quarter” is something different from a normal pub or dance-club.
    2. I would not be so sure that in the ancient times homosexuality was so widespread – certainly, it seems to me (though there is not the place to argue for it here), not commonplace. And although it is more frequent today than it was then (I’d think), it is not either commonplace today; the very and somewhat desperate activity of “anti-homophobic” activists is proof for that.
    3. The homosexuals themselves, when once they are not fighting heteronormativity, will speak of “marrying” with a winking eye, and know quite well that their marriages are not really marriages. Even more this is the case with the man in the street; I’ve more than once thought of George Orwells phrase “if there’s any hope, it is with the proles” in that regard. No, marriage is still largely understood. The immorality of sex outside of and contraception within it and the forbiddenness of remarriage after disrupted marriage are really not believed by the masses, but as for same-sex “marriage”, we are facing a different problem. It’s that there seems to be a large-scale ban on openly saying what everyone has known, and everyone, even today, still knows. So much for free speech… (I’m inclined to think the well-meaning politically correct heterosexual elites are more prey to that diversion than the homosexuals themselves, and not only because they have less excuse; and I have more than once thought of George Orwell’s dictum: “If there is any hope left, it lies with the proles.”)
    4. Our society, or more properly, our political commonwealth(s) do not think either that they can get away with it or that they cannot; if they would, we’d be rid of three quarters of the problem.
    5. The percentage of the homosexuals is not infinitesimal… (Or otherwise, it could not possibly be growing because it would do so by a finite factor, and every finite factor attached to an infinitesimal size is eaten up.) They are a tiny minority, which you wanted to say of course… On the other hand, where do you know from that it’s growing? I had assumed that, now that the barrier of morality is in general feeling totally lifted (and I think we are so far already), it stagnates at some 1, 2 or 3 %.

  59. Mr. Green says:

    The problem with opposing “homosexuals couples adopting” and “leaving children without parents” is that it is a false dichotomy. Homosexual couples still leave a child without parents. A man cannot be a mother, not even a homosexual man; nor can a homosexual woman be a father. This is obvious but very important. Deliberately putting a child into a situation where he will be deprived of at least one parent is seriously problematic (and I have a hard time imagining our pope being that cruel and heartless!).

    It is also disingenuous simply to describe homosexual couples as providing “loving homes” for children. Orphanages may conjure up unpleasant Dickensian images, but they can of course be loving insofar as they provide for children’s welfare; homes may be more homey, but nevertheless fail to provide first and foremost for the children’s wellbeing. In particular, it is not loving to steer someone away from the truth; a homosexual couple can indeed provide material and emotional love for a child, but spiritual wellbeing is more important, and to pretend that a mother or a father is not valuable is not a loving thing to do. At least nobody is pretending that the board of directors of an orphanage are somehow equivalent to the orphan’s “parents”.

  60. Mr. Green says:

    Fr. Jim: netokor, the man is gay, he is not partnered, and he is a single parent. So, actually, he is not living in opposition “to the teachings and wisdom of our Holy Catholic Church.”

    I’m not sure I follow. The Church clearly indicates that it is good and right for a child to be raised by both his mother and his father. If this man is concerned to fully follow Church teachings, then why does he not get married to a nice woman who can be a mother to the child?

    (Oh, I understand that that may not be to his personal taste; but of course if he truly loves the child then he will put the child’s needs above his own likings. Perhaps we should help set him up with some suitable Catholic lady?)

  61. Mariana2 says:

    Mr. Green says:

    “The problem with opposing “homosexuals couples adopting” and “leaving children without parents” is that it is a false dichotomy. Homosexual couples still leave a child without parents….It is also disingenuous simply to describe homosexual couples as providing “loving homes” for children. Orphanages may conjure up unpleasant Dickensian images, but they can of course be loving insofar as they provide for children’s welfare; homes may be more homey, but nevertheless fail to provide first and foremost for the children’s wellbeing.”

    Exactly! This would also be my reply to

    frjim4321 says:
    ““With respect: rubbish!” – Mariana2

    So, do you think an orphan would rather cycle through a an series of foster homes rather than be adopted into a loving home with (a) gay parent(s)?”

    Exactly!

  62. Mariana2 says:

    Sorry, the second “Exactly!” above is de trop.

  63. mamajen says:

    Mr. Green,

    Hear, hear! I will say that I didn’t fully appreciate how important a mother and a father are until I married and had children myself. Father Jim and many others who make the “loving home” argument lack that experience. I can see and feel the love my boys have for me, and think about the unspeakable cruelty it is to purposely deprive a child of a mother (or a father).

    Regarding your second comment, I remember reading in the aftermath of 9/11 about some filmmaker (or some such high-profile person) who, though gay, decided to marry his female best friend in order to have a family together. I was incredibly moved by that. I wish I could remember who it was–I wonder how it turned out.

  64. Do any of you see how this discussion has been hijacked?

    FrJim isn’t really the topic. You see that, right?

  65. Cathy says:

    Amen, Father Z! frjim4321 entirely skipped over Pope Francis’ statements to employ the popular and fashionable mindset that every evil can somehow be defended in our culture as “good for the children” and the entire commentary followed him down the rabbit hole. It must necessarily come as a shock to the progressives to have a pope that, in their minds, looks like them, cries out against injustices towards the poor like them, and, yet, unlike them, holds firm the boundaries of Christ and His Church as well as advising bishops to do so, and to do so boldly.

  66. Pingback: Speak out against gay adoption to protect children’s rights to a mother and father – Pope Francis to Bishop Scicluna « Protect the Pope

  67. CrimsonCatholic says:

    I apologize for my earlier post and not following the guidelines of you

    @ Our honorable blogger,I apologize for my earlier post and not following your guidelines.

    Also would it not be better for you address frjim in the first place? Your recent post about cultural warriors should mean that priest and bishops speak out against the culture of sin. Certainly, this is a situation that calls for such an action, and are not souls at risk of being lead astray?

  68. Mr. Green says:

    In an attempt to stay on topic, I want to build on something Fr. Z. said in the original post: Friends, I have been saying it all along. When you set aside the home-spun, off-the cuff stuff, Pope Francis is as hard as nails when it comes to moral and doctrinal issues.

    And more than that, when you account for the Pope’s doctrinal firmness, the off-the-cuff stuff starts making sense. I am still disappointed at how many people want to read Pope Francis through the lens of Time Magazine instead of reading Francis through Francis! A little hermeneutic of self-continuity goes a long way.

    As for the Pope’s being “shocked”, that doesn’t necessarily mean he was taken by surprise. (Translation issues aside, if I stick my finger in the electrical outlet, I will certainly be shocked… but I cannot honestly claim that it comes as a surprise!)