Friday, April 07, 2006

The Anachronism of Parenthood



Fr. McBrien has an article today in the Tidings (where else) that is an effort to promote the idea of adoption by homosexual couples. Fr. McBrien attempts to pull our heartstrings about how mistreated homosexuals have been by the Church and contrast their persecution with their intention to "help children". Naturally we are to conclude that out of feelings of guilt and pity we will acquiesce again and grant homosexuals another level of societal acceptance and endorse their family aspirations.

The article is here.


From the article:


Throughout this controversy, there have been constant --- but unspecific --- references to the Vatican's condemnation of such adoptions as "gravely immoral."

That judgment appears in a document issued by the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) on July 31, 2003, entitled, "Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons." Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, was prefect of the Congregation at that time.

The pertinent section reads as follows: "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.... 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...." (n. 7, para. 3).


Fr. McBrien asks:

Is there evidence that "violence" is, in fact, done to children placed in adoptive households of same-sex couples, as the CDF asserted?


And strangely enough I found the answer to that question in today's news. An article entitled:Custody Court hands sisters over to mother's lesbian lover


From the article:

Two young sisters at the centre of a bitter custody battle were taken from their biological mother yesterday and sent to live with her former lesbian lover following a landmark court ruling.

The Court of Appeal ruled that although the natural mother had blood ties to the girls, that would no longer be deemed an advantage when both parties had brought the children up.


and:

The judge said: "We have moved into a world where norms that seemed safe 20 or more years ago no longer run. In the eyes of the child, the natural parent may be a non-biological parent who, by virtue of long settled care, has become the psychological parent."


Ah, the psychological parent, very chilling indeed given what it will mean to all families when this precedent is applied.


the rest:

The girls' natural mother, referred to as CG, had a seven-year relationship with her girlfriend, referred to as CW. She gave birth to the seven- and four-year-old sisters, known as A and B, via artificial insemination. None of the parties can be identified to protect the girls' anonymity.

The court heard that the relationship broke down in 2002 and CG moved to a neighbouring house until she found a new lesbian partner in Leicester. They recently "married" in a civil partnership.

CW, 47, was denied access and any parental responsibility by a county court judge but this was overturned by the Court of Appeal last April and she was granted shared contact. The judges said shared responsibility was "vital" for the girls' psychological health.

But as the children spent their summer holidays with CW, CG, a "headstrong and selfish" teacher, and her new partner secretly sold their house in Leicester and bought one in Cornwall, registering the children in a new school, a move the judges called "an appalling decision made in an afternoon". It was "a flagrant breach of the court's control of the arrangements for the children and an elaborate deception of CW".

When the family was tracked down, the High Court granted primary care of the children to the former partner, a decision ratified by the Court of Appeal yesterday.


The only hesitation noted was minor:

Lady Justice Hallet said she dismissed the appeal but "with a degree of hesitation".

"I am very concerned at the prospect of removing these children from the primary care of their only identifiable biological parent who has been their primary carer for most of the young lives and in whose care they appear to be happy and thriving."


So, happy and thriving children are awarded to a "psychological" parent presumably to assure the psychological parent that we value her and want to make up some rights to give her self esteem. Fr. McBrien asks for specifics about the violence done to children of homosexual couples- how's this for specifics? Homosexuals are disordered. When they act on their disorder and pair off, marry, create a civil union or whatever word you want to use for their immorality and then introduce children into their sick little worlds you have victims who are preyed upon by those who are supposed to be their caregivers. Homosexuals are not capable of unselfish love, hence their lifestyles. If you are not capable of unselfish love you are not capable of parenthood. Biologically, or psychologically for that matter.

2 comments:

Madeline said...

Another intellectual giant from Notre Dame, eh?

Fr. O'Brien wonders if a homosexual Catholic can be at home in the Catholic Church. The answer is yes. ALL sinners have a place in the Church, IF they repent and ammend their lives.

There is NO place in the Catholic Church however for those who wish to promote their perversion as normal. That includes many Gay priests and bishops, as well as anyone who promotes abortion, birth control, pornography, polytheism, fornication, and the list goes on, and on...

CPT Tom said...

Yes, the meanies of the Catholic church think gays are so immoral...oh wait, the Church doesn't talk about "homosexuals" so much as "homosexuality," being "disordered," as the Church doesn't define the person by their sins. The Church view, which it seems Father O'Brien seems to be purposely unfamilar with, is love the sinner and condem the sin. If the sinner is unrepentent, they can not be absolved or achive salvation of their soul.