The
Bible says that God cursed Eve, the first woman, with the punishment that she
would bring forth children in pain.
Woman was punished in her for she passed this punishment on to all women
by the power of God. What was said to
her was said by God to all women. This
evidently means that having babies today under anaesthetic to avoid pain is
sinful. The Church avoids saying that
which shows how little faith it has in its Bible. But it felt free to forbid attempts to avoid
pain in the past. Queen
The
Law of Moses says that a woman is made unclean by having a baby and it is
dirtier to have a girl than a boy. Such
women could not go near the
The
Church calls babies born outside of a valid marriage bastards
and illegitimate. Canon law used to ban
them from the priesthood. The Law of
Moses dislikes illegitimate children especially for the God who allegedly wrote
it banned them from the priesthood and even their own legitimate children as
well from participation in the sacred rites at the heart of their
religion. The Christian priesthood is
reportedly more sacred than that priesthood therefore it has more reason to
only allow children born in marriage into it.
If Jesus was born outside of marriage that would mean that he could not
be the Son of God for the Law banned children born that way from the priesthood
which would mean somebody like that would have no right to claim to be the
Messiah which was higher than the priesthood.
Nobody could prove that Jesus really was conceived by the Holy Spirit
and we only have the word of unreliable men that he was. And the fact that they were not very worried
about proving their claim warns us as to their dishonesty. That is enough to forbid us to accept Jesus
as the Messiah. Jesus is presented by
the Church as legitimate for he was born of Mary and the Holy Spirit even
though he was conceived without Mary’s husband.
This is extremely insulting to those who are regarded as
illegitimate. Illegitimate implies
criticism of the mother for conceiving outside of wedlock – if you condemn
pre-marital sex or extra-marital sex you have to consider the child
illegitimate. But if the mother did not
get pregnant then but say a month later when she got married she would be
having a different baby not the same one.
So this tells the child she had outside of marriage that he or she
should not have been born.
Many
people born out of wedlock say they find this wholly wicked and say that no
so-called illegitimate person should lower themselves to support the
Church. The Church replies
that it only says the child should not have been conceived but should be born
is contradictory and just an excuse.
The other excuse is that the Church is not condemning the conception but
the circumstances is also unbelievable for without the circumstances there
would have been no conception and had things been different another child would
have been born and not John or Jane. So
every time a priest looks at you if you have been conceived outside of marriage
he is thinking you should not exist.
This is another reason why marriage is so wrong and horrendous for it
legitimises this attitude. Marriage
implies that sex should be regulated and limited to one man and his wife
otherwise just making a legal agreement to share property would be all that is
needed. Remember this, if the Church
could go back in time and prevent the conception it would. It would destroy your existence by preventing
it.
What
if a woman gets pregnant and has a baby as a result of rape? Can we say then that the child should not
exist? We are saying the woman should
not have been raped and it seems if we can say that, that we can say that if
she gave consent she should not have got pregnant as a result of consensual
sex. It would seem we are saying the
baby should not have been born. Rape is
an act of violence rather than sex. It
is violence that takes that form. We are
saying the baby should be born for there is nothing wrong with having a baby as
a result of rape or pre-marital sex. It
is the force in rape that is wrong not the sex.
The
Catholic Church allows adoption. It is
forbidden when it is done for unloving reasons.
That is odd for you are still obligated by the Christian understanding
of God to help people even if you have a bad reason. If the unmarried mother or deserted-wife
mother has plenty of relations to help and the men are willing to be there for
the child to replace the father in as many ways as possible then the Church
allows her to keep the baby if she wants to.
Think about this. The baby will
have a father and mother if it is given up.
So, is it better or worse for her to give the child up? Or is it as good to give it up as to keep it?
It
must be better for her to give the baby away for some married couple if
marriage is intended by God to ensure that children have a mother and
father. It presupposes that relatives helping an unmarried mother is not the same. We see how God’s teaching is ignored by the
Church when there would be too much of an uproar if the Church supported it.
Yet
the teaching that we must love God with all our hearts and our neighbour as
ourselves meaning we cannot love our neighbour if we hide God’s teaching from
her or him implies that God’s doctrine should never be hidden for his will
comes before everything.
If
what is moral is doing what is best and marriage is the only lawful arrangement
for having kids, then it is a sin for an unmarried woman to keep her baby
unless she is engaged to the father. The
Church used to rip babies from their mothers’ arms by force and put them up for
adoption which was not surprising with its rigid view of marriage
relationships. When Jesus
was so strict about marriage that he only allowed separation or divorce without
remarriage if adultery had taken place it implies that he does not want
children raised except by the father and his wife the mother. Only if something tragic happened to the
parents might there be an exception.
Beating the children up is not grounds for separation in the Jesus
system. Just face it, he didn’t care. Deep down the Church must agree with Jesus
and hold that it is a single mother’s duty to give up her child. That it does not shout this louder makes its
treatment of homosexuals and contracepting heterosexuals all the more
vicious.
Humanists
believe that the love between a man and a woman or between a man and a man or a
woman and a woman plus their being good people and being in a stable
relationship and showing a knack for caring for children is enough to allow
them to adopt children. It is better to
be chosen by a good gay couple as their child by adoption than to be
haphazardly thrown into the arms of a married father and mother who may not
want you and who may be alcoholics. The
Church commands that society must make sure that straight couples who want to
adopt will be thoroughly checked out. It
concludes that it is very wrong to say that children are better off with nice
gay couples than bad straight ones. The
Church is consciously missing the point.
The point is children are better off with a good caring gay couple than
a straight married couple who are decent but not as nice as the gays. To say that gays cannot adopt is simply
saying they are not as trustworthy as anybody else. Some in the Church might go as far as to say
that they are not saying that but that it is not the right natural environment. But that amounts to saying just that gays are
not trustworthy and are intrinsically harmful to children which is far worse
than saying they harm deliberately. It
is akin to racism.
Even
if research and statistics proved that it was bad for children to be adopted by
gay couples the fact remains that even if it were good for the children or if
some couples were great parents, the Church would still disapprove. It is religious law it cares about not the
children.
It
is nice to have your parents checked out for you but wonderful Mother Nature is
completely indifferent to the welfare of children when anybody can be a father
or mother the natural way.
WORKS CONSULTED
A Catechism of Christian Doctrine, Catholic Truth
Society,
Believing in God, PJ McGrath, Wolfhound Press,
Biblical Dictionary and Concordance of the New
American Bible, Confraternity of Christian Doctrine,
Divorce, John R Rice, Sword of the Lord,
Eunuchs for the
Moral Questions, Bishops Conference, Catholic
Truth Society,
New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Catholic University
of America and the McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., Washington, District of
Columbia, 1967
Preparing for a Mixed Marriage, Irish Episcopal
Conference, Veritas,
Rome has Spoken, A Guide to Forgotten Papal
Statements and How They Have Changed Through the Centuries, Maureen Fiedler and
Linda Rabben (Editors), Crossroad Publishing, New York, 1998
Shattered Vows, Exodus From
the Priesthood, David Rice, Blackstaff Press,
Sex & Marriage A Catholic Perspective, John M
Hamrogue C SS R,
The Emancipation of a Freethinker, Herbert
Ellsworth Cory, The Bruce Publishing Company,