Catholic question- adoption?

[keyslover]

Ok- my knowledge of Catholic teaching and beliefs is limited, so help me out here.

1) marriage is only for procreation
2) ivf is evil

Where does that leave adoption? If you adopt and do not have your own biological child does this make your marriage null?

[keyslover]

Thank you. I am glad I asked

[ladyk]

I actually got into an argument with my priest in the 10th grade when I was going through confirmation. He actually said to me the point of marriage is procreation and with no kids, then you shouldn't get married. He & I went round & round about it. Of course, there are more than a few things the Church & I disagree on.

[Deleted]

My grandparents were very devout and adopted once my grandmother had a medically required hystorectomy (I believe as a result of her third bio kid.)

[SallyJ]

Ok this might start a debate, but how does the Church reconcile using clomid and not allowing BCP? Does it have to do with the 'being open to children' part?

[ringstrue]

Pretty much anyone I know IRL that has adopted a child has done it because they had IF issues and were Catholic. My impression is that they are heavily encouraged to adopt if they can't have kids on their own and want them.

[teflep]

Sept 19, 2012 8:48:44 GMT -5 SallyJ said:

Ok this might start a debate, but how does the Church reconcile using clomid and not allowing BCP? Does it have to do with the 'being open to children' part?

It does allow BCP for medical needs (amenorrhea (sp?)). But, yes, I do believe that is a reason.

[keyslover]

I was wondering about the open to children part. I assume this to mean bio children since an argument against same sex marriage is it is not natural and I am guessing this means they cannot produce a child. Why doesn't adoption count then if it is acceptable in the church?

I hope this makes sense. Coffee hasnt hit yet.

[teflep]

Sept 19, 2012 8:53:42 GMT -5 keyslover said:

I was wondering about the open to children part. I assume this to mean bio children since an argument against same sex marriage is it is not natural and I am guessing this means they cannot produce a child. Why doesn't adoption count then if it is acceptable in the church?

I hope this makes sense. Coffee hasnt hit yet.

It does if you are biologically capable, even if medical issues step in. That is not the case with gay couples (I don't agree with this stance as family is family,but I am just illustrating what I have heard growing up).

[Deleted]

Sept 19, 2012 8:48:44 GMT -5 SallyJ said:

Ok this might start a debate, but how does the Church reconcile using clomid and not allowing BCP? Does it have to do with the 'being open to children' part?

Basically, the Catholic position is that the only licit way to conceive is through P in V. If you're not ovulating regularly, you can take medication to help that, but you still have to put P in V to get Baby.

You cannot use "artificial" means to avoid Baby. This includes any form of barrier or hormonal birth control. The only acceptable method is abstaining during fertile times.

Essentially, the Catholic church says that you cannot separate the sexin' from the potential baby makin'. Clomid doesn't do that. Birth control pills do.

Now, I personally find there to be a logical disconnect between allowing NFP but not allowing "artificial" birth control. They both have the same goal - avoiding pregnancy. It was explained to me this way: if you're hungry, you can buy a loaf of bread or you can steal a loaf of bread. Both actions have the same goal - eating. But one is permissible and one is not. Of course, this analogy requires the assumption that artificial birth control is inherently wrong. At some level, it's really difficult to wrap your head around it. Given that birth control methods fail, I don't understand how using birth control pills is not being "open to life" while using NFP is.

I've really, really tried to understand it, but at the end of the day, I just can't see a logical distinction between BCP and NFP. But then, I'm not Catholic, so I feel nary a twinge of guilt about using BC.

[amberlyrose]

Sept 19, 2012 8:58:20 GMT -5 @angryharpy said:

Sept 19, 2012 8:48:44 GMT -5 SallyJ said:

Ok this might start a debate, but how does the Church reconcile using clomid and not allowing BCP? Does it have to do with the 'being open to children' part?

Basically, the Catholic position is that the only licit way to conceive is through P in V. If you're not ovulating regularly, you can take medication to help that, but you still have to put P in V to get Baby.

You cannot use "artificial" means to avoid Baby. This includes any form of barrier or hormonal birth control. The only acceptable method is abstaining during fertile times.

Essentially, the Catholic church says that you cannot separate the sexin' from the potential baby makin'. Clomid doesn't do that. Birth control pills do.

Now, I personally find there to be a logical disconnect between allowing NFP but not allowing "artificial" birth control. They both have the same goal - avoiding pregnancy. It was explained to me this way: if you're hungry, you can buy a loaf of bread or you can steal a loaf of bread. Both actions have the same goal - eating. But one is permissible and one is not. Of course, this analogy requires the assumption that artificial birth control is inherently wrong. At some level, it's really difficult to wrap your head around it. Given that birth control methods fail, I don't understand how using birth control pills is not being "open to life" while using NFP is.

I've really, really tried to understand it, but at the end of the day, I just can't see a logical distinction between BCP and NFP. But then, I'm not Catholic, so I feel nary a twinge of guilt about using BC.

The way the hormonal BC thing was explained to me was that it is still possible for the egg to meet the sperm but the lining is thinned, creating an abortion in the Church's eyes.

How they explain condoms, I'm not exactly sure.

[meltoine]

This transcript of a lecture by a prominent Catholic educator will answer all of these questions. It's long, but worth the time if you are genuinely interested. You can find the audio version onitines, too, I believe.

www.nd.edu/~afreddos/courses/264/contraception-whynot.htm

[meltoine]

Infertility does not make your marriage invalid. Choosing to not have children does.

Ape opting children is a great thing to do and the Church encourages it whole-heartedly. She offers many resources to help place children with families and to help families adjust to an adoption.

If you are physically capable of having bio kids, you cannot choose not to and have a licit, Catholic marriage.

[meltoine]

Sept 19, 2012 8:48:44 GMT -5 SallyJ said:

Ok this might start a debate, but how does the Church reconcile using clomid and not allowing BCP? Does it have to do with the 'being open to children' part?

Clomid fixes something that is broken. Fertility and ovulation are normal, healthy conditions in adult females. Anovulation means something is not working right and it's okay to fix something that is not working right.

BCP, on the other hand, when used as contraception, breaks something that is working properly. When it is used as medication to treat something that is abnormal - PCOS, endometriosis, etc - it's okay.

When a married (and presumably sexually active) woman is considering using BCP to treat one of the aforementioned conditions, she and her husband are urged to consider other methods of treatment as well as the harm to their relationship from using BCP vs. the harm to the woman from letting the condition go untreated, or treated by another means. They should weigh the pros and cons of each scenario and decide together, after prayerful contemplation, which is right for them and their relationship.

[meltoine]

Sept 19, 2012 15:46:51 GMT -5 amberlyrose said:

Sept 19, 2012 8:58:20 GMT -5 @angryharpy said:

How they explain condoms, I'm not exactly sure.

God created the first human being - Adam, in His image. He then split Adam in two and there was man and woman. When man and woman come back together in sexual intercourse, they are one again the image of God. This is an hugely important part of the bonding aspect of sex. Putting a barrier in between the man and woman prohibits this aspect of bonding by preventing them fully coming back together.