When a child is made an orphan due to the death of his parents or because he has been abandoned by his natural family, society incurs an obligation to ensure that he is cared for. The best solution is to find a family to adopt him. It is very sad for a child to have to grow up in an institution. Even the best institutions cannot provide the warmth and the love that a family can.
In selecting an appropriate adopting family, authorities must exercise the utmost care. First and foremost, those who are chosen must be a stable married couple composed of a husband and his wife. Strangely, even this common sense requirement is now not only open to public debate, but the object of an attack by secular extremists who resent the traditional family. They would like to see cohabiting heterosexual and homosexual couples receive the same consideration as the unquestionably best situation for children--the natural family.
It is surprising that a cohabiting couple should be interested in adopting a child. How can two persons who are not ready to make a life commitment to each other be ready to make a joint life commitment to raise and educate a child? A couple that applies to adopt a child has to demonstrate a degree of maturity and integrity that goes well beyond the fact of merely not having a criminal record.
It has been argued that if we do not allow cohabiting couples to adopt then many orphans will remain without adoptive parents. Whoever makes this claim has the obligation to present evidence to back it up.
Further, two persons of the same sex can never offer the complementary formation that a married man and woman offer. In order to grow to a healthy maturity, a child needs healthy masculine and feminine role models that are clear and well defined.
We are increasingly seeing such basic truths under attack in America. Various city councils and state legislatures are forcing private institutions to legalize adoption for couples that do not have a stable relationship, or are formed by persons of the same sex. The Boston Catholic Charities affiliate was forced to stop providing adoption services due to its failure to dispense with its core values and give children to unmarried persons. In the District of Columbia, the legalization of same sex unions resulted in the closure of a local Charities foster care and public adoption program because this law required the agency to provide services to homosexual couples.
Sister Irene in the New York Foundling Hospital which she founded. Image via Wikipedia
Now we are experiencing this same problem in the State of Illinois: the Diocese of Rockford on May 26th was forced to end its adoption and foster care program because it could not accept the requirements of a new civil unions law. The Rockford diocese spokesman underlined that, "The agency is being forced to opt out of contracting with the State of Illinois for these services because of the Illinois legislature's failure to enact an explicit amendment to the new Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Unions Act"
Adding to the deluge, on May 3rd Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) introduced a bill entitled the "Every Child Deserves a Family Act." Its 52 co-sponsors in the House include Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). This House bill would prohibit "discrimination in adoption or foster care placements" based on sexual orientation, gender identity or marital status of any prospective adoptive or foster parent, or the sexual orientation or gender identity of the child involved.
We have to be grateful to the Lord that with the current House membership this bill will not pass; but if that were to change in 2012 we will be confronted with the serious prospect that this horrible bill might became law. If this were to happen, it would mean the end of the Catholic adoption agencies in the U.S.
These local legislative trends are very concerning first and foremost because they are against the best interests of the children. It seems that many politicians and activists are more concerned about protecting the supposed rights of adults then the rights of the children -- which for any person of good will should be the paramount consideration. A country that sees children as pawns in advancing a radical ideology has very serious problems, and we must do all we can to expose this fact.
It is also very important to note that these laws are also a serious infringement upon the right of conscience of religious institutions. Indeed, they are further evidence of the slow sliding of contemporary democracies into tyrannical regimes that disregard the most basic human rights of its citizens.
We must work to reverse this trend. Let us also hope and pray that the Lord will send us courageous leaders that can effectively make the case in the public square, and ensure that children, and all of us, are guaranteed our most basic human rights.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Monsignor Ignacio Barreiro-Carámbula
Interim President, Human Life International
