What is the Church's position on a homosexual couple adopting a child?

17 yr old DD asked me this question.

I wasn’t sure of the answer.

I suppose I could look it up–the answer must be *somewhere *on the Web…but I’d rather just see a discussion ensue here. :slight_smile:

From the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s document Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons:

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

Note that this is why many Catholic Charities offices (in places such as Boston and Illinois) have shuttered their adoption/foster care agencies when laws were passed that would require them to place children with same sex couples.

Ah. Very good, then. Thanks!

Do we really even need to ask the answer to that question? Have we become so confused that we cannot ever tell right from wrong without some official explanation? I am sorry if that is a harsh question, but that is why the secularists win. They control the public square.

What about a single man or woman? Is a child adopted by a single man deprived of a mother? Is it just as wrong, and for the same reason?

I think the Church would say that raising a child as a single parent unfortunately sometimes happens, and it’s hard. It sounds like this is an ever growing trend with divorce rates being so high, and so on. Sometimes other things happen too - parents abandoning their families, deaths, etc.

Anyway, I would say that a single parent raising a child, regardless of how well that child is raised, is still a tragedy, and something negative had to have happened to make that situation occur (like mentioned before, death, divorce, etc).

however, the child is not purposefully placed in that single parent’s home (I’d assume), and most times it’ll be a biological parent raising them, which is naturally better than adoption because of the bond between the child and parent (especially if it’s the mother).

So while the situation may seem similar, the violence done can be less than the gay adoption scenario.

But I know of a single woman, never married, who adopted and raised many children. The children were “purposefully placed in her home.” She was not biologically related to any of them. By what you have said, she would have to be condemmed as much as the gay couple. And in the case of a gay couple, it may just be one of the two who is adopting, since the couple may not be able to be married in the state in which they live. So legally, it is a single individual adopting a child and is thus no different (at least from a legal point of view).

I am not defending adoption by gays or singles, just trying to see how the Church views each. Are they seen as different and how so?

I think that there is a difference on environment. That would be my take.

There is no evidence that the environment of children raised in a same sex parent homes is harmful to their well being. In fact the few valid studies show that same sex parenting is as good as and sometimes better. Such studies point to the competency of the parents rather than their sexual orientation such as the best know sturdy from the American Academy of Pediatrics

Promoting the Well-Being of Children Whose Parents Are Gay or Lesbian

Abstract

Extensive data available from more than 30 years of research reveal that children raised by gay and lesbian parents have demonstrated resilience with regard to social, psychological, and sexual health despite economic and legal disparities and social stigma. Many studies have demonstrated that children’s well-being is affected much more by their relationships with their parents, their parents’ sense of competence and security, and the presence of social and economic support for the family than by the gender or the sexual orientation of their parents. Lack of opportunity for same-gender couples to marry adds to families’ stress, which affects the health and welfare of all household members. Because marriage strengthens families and, in so doing, benefits children’s development, children should not be deprived of the opportunity for their parents to be married. Parenthood should focus on competency of the parents rather than their sexual orientation.

Where is the example of a father, of a mother? Those are scientifically proven to be important for the development of a child. The quote you provided implies that it’s actually the opposition to same sex marriage that harms the family unit, without taking into consideration what the traditional family actually offers. The role of parents are important, studies show that. It’s not about which can produce healthier children more than the other, it’s about which environment provides the best way for the child to grow, to learn, to live. Same sex couples naturally cannot provide the exact same thing as a traditional couple. That’s what I understand about the Church’s view.

My personal question is why would a same sex couple want a child?

Extensive data available from more than 30 years of research reveal that children raised by gay and lesbian parents have demonstrated resilience with regard to social, psychological, and sexual health despite economic and legal disparities and social stigma. Many studies have demonstrated that children’s well-being is affected much more by their relationships with their parents, their parents’ sense of competence and security, and the presence of social and economic support for the family than by the gender or the sexual orientation of their parents. Lack of opportunity for same-gender couples to marry adds to families’ stress, which affects the health and welfare of all household members. Because marriage strengthens families and, in so doing, benefits children’s development, children should not be deprived of the opportunity for their parents to be married. Parenthood should focus on competency of the parents rather than their sexual orientation.

Yes, because agenda driven data can always be trusted. :rolleyes:
Yes, because Thousands of years of experience is worthless compared to 30 yrs. of agenda driven studies.
Yes, because unintended consequences were not studied, because they haven’t surfaced yet, but so what?
Yes, I believe anything couched in liberal scientific-speak :shrug:

Thank you, but what is the Church’s position? Does the Church make a similar claim?

I can’t find an exact quote on the issue, but from everything I’ve read on these forums and the views of the Church on marriage, I would have to say that the Church would say that a same sex couple cannot model traditional marriage roles, and that a mother, father, and child make up important roles in a healthy household. A marriage, in the Church’s view is an image of the Trinity. A male and female get married, and out of a loving union a child is born. This is something that a same sex couple cannot represent, even if they were legally allowed to marry, and these important things are things that a child needs to see, especially in today’s ever increasing fatherless household and divorce torn homes.

Marriage, as designed by God includes children, and even if there is one parent, then it’s still possible for that home to be made complete through a spouse of the opposite sex.

There is also something in the Ten Commandments about the necessary gender balance of family/parenthood.
Honor thy Mother AND Father.

The Church has closed down Catholic adoption agencies rather than comply with laws which would require it to place children with same sex couples. That makes its position pretty clear. It will not place children with same sex couples because that is a disordered living situation.

A child can be left with one parent through natural circumstances. It is not ideal, but it is not a disordered living situation. If more states pass laws requiring adoption agencies to place children with same sex couples, Catholic adoption agencies in those states will have to close down rather than comply with such a law.

To re-quote part of the quote from the CDF regarding this matter:

Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.

Another social service lost because of the state. Does anyone else see how the state likes to take over social services provided by the Church? With more and more services offered, the Church becomes more irrelevant in this important sphere of spiritual life. And this activity by the state draws more and more people to worship the state. Freedom of religion is a myth taught to us by the state.

I am not arguing that you are not correct in your knowledge of church rules. You say that some things are scientifically proven but offer no references to valid scholarly studies that back up your statement.

I cited a summary from which you drew erroneous conclusions. Of course there will be differences in environments but which is more important to the well being of children the make up of the parents or the quality of parenting? Read the entire study you will find that on one is claiming mom and dad make for bad parents.

What kind of unintended consequences are you expecting. Are you seeing any unintended consequences. Surely 30 years is a sufficient period in which unintended consequences would have at least started to become known. On the on the other hand there exists numerous evident consequences of poor quality parenting

That doesn’t make sense because we already know that adoption isn’t the best situation for a child, so how can same sex adoption not only become a great place for an adoption, but actually the best place for the child, even more than with a mother and father?

What makes it a better situation?

You are the one not making any sense. You do not appear to have any appreciation for what is. In the US there are around one half million children in foster care that are in need, of permanent loving families – that is the what is. My point is simply that 30 years of experience and valid studies, as in the above study I cited from the American Academy of Pediatrics has shown it is not the sex of the adoptive parents but the quality of parenting that is in the best interests of the child’s well being.

It is fair to critique a scientific study on its methodology but not on what one thinks it implies. Please quote from the article that I cited or any other where it suggests that the best outcome for a child is to be adopted by same sex parents as opposed to quality of parenting. In case you missed it, the summary concluded with, parenthood should focus on competency of the parents rather than their sexual orientation.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.