Pope to Jesus: Kiss Off!

There are millions of orphans currently suffering.  Many of them will suffer horrible abuse at the hands of foster parents.  In other countries, they will be sold into slavery.  These children exist, and if someone doesn't help them, they will suffer.  That much is a constant.

Yet, according to the Catholic Church, only marriage between a man and woman is moral because it leads to a married couple having children.

Has Christianity become so perverted that not adopting (having children rather than adopting them is an conscious act) children is more moral than ending human suffering?

What has happened to the teachings of Christ? 

Having children is the most selfish thing you can do.  You are not so special that your genes need to be passed on to the next generation.  Really, why do people think this?  I am somewhat self-involved, but thinking my seed must be passed on is beyond even my vainest moments.

The need to procreate is not something spiritual.  The dogs down the street are doing it; and they've never even been to Sunday school.  The desire to procreate is a biological urge.  And it's no different from other fleshly desires.

It is sort of silly to say, "I need to go forth and multiply," given that others have done more than a good enough job doing that. 

Children are great.  And children suffering is a horrible injustice.  A church that truly taught Christ's message would encourage adoption over procreation. 

Yet the Pope is more concerned with adults entering into consensual sexual relations than he is with children being sold into sexual slavery.  Yes, when you choose not to adopt, you make it more likely that a child will suffer.  You are culpable. 

It's a strange world we live in, when even the Pope has missed the basic message of the New Testament.  He's more worried about gay adults than he is with suffering children.

Then again, this wouldn't be the first time the Pope was more concerned with adult gays trying to marry than he was with child molestation, would it?

Comments

[derifter]

The pope's comments probably were not meant to discourage adoption, but to underscore the church's ideal of marriage, as between a man and a woman. It would also be a stretch to assume he's okay with child abuse. You could make the argument, I suppose, that he's more concerned with one than the other, but at the end of the day his position would be that both are immoral.

[derifter]

Huh. I tried leaving a comment but sorta got booted after the verification thing. If I wind up posting the same comment twice, then I must have really meant it!

The pope probably didn't mean to discourage adoption, but only to underscore the church's ideal of marriage, which is between a man and a woman. And he probably isn't okay with child abuse, though you imply that he's less concerned with that than homosexuality. I think if you asked him he would say both are immoral.

[Adam]

Ridiculous! The entire argument is so off base as to almost be unworthy of correction. However, in the spirit of correcting a terribly poor thought out misconstruction of what the very Vicar of Christ is attempting to encourage, I make write the following:

The Catholic Church is against abortion. It supports and is a huge proponent of adoption.

To conclude that the Church is against same sex marriages on the basis that it is against adoption is absurd. It is against same sex marriage for many reasons and one reason undeniably is due to the fact that they would fail to naturally lead to children. Again, this is but one of many reasons as to why the Church does not support such a union.

Having said that, the Church does not condone any sex act between any "consenting" persons where ejaculate does not have the opportunity to reach the ovum and have the potential for creating life.

How the author of this article takes that basic Christian belief and turns it into some sort of twisted anti adoption, molestation condoning platform, says more about the author than about any position of the Church.

[Deuce Geary]

Mike, you're way off base. People who tend to criticize Catholics and other Christians for concentrating on abortion and same sex marriage while supposedly "ignoring" othe rproblems fail to recognize why. There are strong movements to legitimaize both practices (and inthe case of abortion, an already successful movement). it is natural for the Church to marshall its forces to counterattack. And given that both sides have mobilized in political and legal circles, natural that you would hear the most about these issues.

I suspect that for most such critics (not necessarily you), this typoe of argument is not made to actually firther the fight against poverty, or slavery, or whatever other "ignored" issue is pointed out, but to try (good luck) to shame the Church into abandoning the battlefield on the high-profile issues fo the "progressives" can proceed unopposed.

Why on earth would you assume that because the Church actively fights vociferous proponents of legalizing and legitimizing practices that are immoral in the eyes of the Church, it "doesn;t care" about other injustices? Because you don't see it on the news? There are millions of Christians in this country alone that give their time and money to fight poverty, homelessness, addiction, domestic violence, etc.

[Aaron]

Having said that, the Church does not condone any sex act between any "consenting" persons where ejaculate does not have the opportunity to reach the ovum and have the potential for creating life.

You are seriously telling us that the Catholic Church will not marry a post-menopausal woman, a man who has had a vasectomy, or a man or woman infertile for any other reason? That sex with such a person, even in the confines of marriage, is not condoned by the Church?

[Michael Ejercito]

Mike, would you apply this same reasoning to groups in favor of same-sex marriage?

Should supporters of same-sex marriage stop fighting for same-sex marriage and instead advocate adoption of children?

Or is that somehow different?