The church & gay adoption.

Instead of the thoughtful encounter with the Catholic tradition typical of Commonweal, Jo McGowan's recent column is a rant against the "recent decision by Catholic Charities of Boston ... to refuse to allow gay couples to adopt children." She says the decision is "an example of wrongheadedness and intransigence," a "disgrace." She is "grieved" at the decision and "amazed" at its "stupidity." Although she says that the decision was in response to "unwarranted pressure from both the bishops of Massachusetts and from the Vatican," she does not explain how it is "unwarranted" for the archbishop of Boston to question the practices of an organization operating in the name of his local church. Nor does she explain why it is "unwarranted," in light of the church's apostolic tradition, for the Holy See to offer fraternal correction. What passes for argument in McGowan's piece is the claim that love is rare, and because gay couples are willing to love children in desperate need, they should be permitted to adopt. However, McGowan fails to address the magisterial claim that sexual acts performed by people of the same sex are "intrinsically disordered," and, as such, cannot be genuinely loving in nature, notwithstanding the feelings and intentions of the parties.

The magisterium has exercised its prudential judgment in claiming that allowing gay couples to adopt would place children "in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development." The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith does not say that such couples fail to aid these children's development in all respects. Clearly, these couples can provide for children's material needs, and serve as a source of emotional support and guidance. These benefits must be balanced against the deficiencies in such an arrangement, including the obvious absence of a mother or a father. This same deficiency is also present in adoptions by single parents but, to my knowledge, the church has not described such arrangements as doing "violence" to the children involved. Why the difference? Most same-sex couples engage in conduct that the church regards as deeply sinful. Thus, as models of behavior, such parents cannot but impair their children's moral development. (The mere possibility of defective moral formation, however, is not an impediment to adoption in other instances.)

McGowan ends by asserting that gay couples are actually "better suited than most" to serve as adoptive parents because of their own experience with social rejection. This suggests that same-sex couples should be given priority over heterosexual married couples in the adoption process. Given the abundance of children in need of adoptive homes, the likelihood that a policy favoring gay couples would actually preclude a married couple from adopting some child is nonexistent. Such a policy could, however, diminish a married couple's chances of adopting a particular child. Even here the effect would be speculative given the role of birth mothers in selecting adoptive parents.

My wife and I are the adoptive parents of two young boys. We are quite familiar with the special burdens and joys of adoption. McGowan is correct that adoption isn't for everyone, and that those contemplating it should be prepared physically, emotionally, and spiritually for the adventure that lies ahead. At the same time, any attempt to give priority to gay couples, or even to place them on the same plane of eligibility as married couples, would be profoundly "wrongheaded." I suspect that most people would strongly object to equating same-sex couples and married heterosexual couples in the adoption setting, a reaction prompted by something that resides deep inside the human conscience, something that people intuit but may have trouble putting into words. Is not the role of Commonweal to help people enunciate the still voice of conscience? To help the faithful learn to "think with the church"?

JOHN M. BREEN

Chicago, III.

THE AUTHOR REPLIES:

An eight-hundred-word column is not the place for a reasoned analysis of church teaching, and much that John Breen reported missing from my argument was indeed so. Had I addressed the issues he brings up, however, I would have had to write a long article. Still, I would have arrived at the same conclusion.

"Thinking with the church" seems to imply for Breen that the church is something other than all of us, that if we disagree with an official position, our task is to change our minds, not to question or to challenge that position. Yet the church has evolved over centuries: men with disabilities were once barred from the priesthood and women were forbidden to speak in the congregation. How did these things change if not by the faithful responding to the voice of the Spirit?

The church declares homosexual acts intrinsically disordered. In good conscience, I disagree. I believe gay people are created by God as they are, and that as parents they face the same challenges we all do. Breen misunderstands me when he worries that I advocate giving gay parents priority over heterosexual ones in the adoption process. Each child's situation is treated individually when choosing the family she will be placed with. The child's needs come first. And in any case, as he admits, there are plenty of babies to go around.

Breen's contention that most people would deeply object to gay couples being equated with heterosexuals acknowledges the role of the unconscious in this issue. The deep unease he refers to cannot be put into words because it has no rational basis. There is virtually no scientific evidence to support the claim that gay couples harm their children. Give gay couples the chance and the odds are good that they will prove worthy of the responsibilities entrusted to them. Jesus, I firmly believe, would welcome the love that impels people to open their lives to a child. He would pay no attention to the meaningless details.

JO McGOWAN