Are sinners allowed to adopt?

1. The Catholic Church has long decried homosexual acts as sinful, and neither acknowledges nor condones homosexual marriages. 
2. They also oppose legal marriage rights for gay couples and seem particularly vehement in their opposition to adoption. 

I just feel the need to point out that 2 by no means follows from 1.

Making claims about what is and is not sinful is standard issue; the Church has been at that for a long time, and wont be stopping any time soon.  Furthermore, it seems clear to me that it is within the rights of the Church to refuse the sacrament of marriage, or any sacrament for that matter, to anyone for failing to meet certain theologically determined criteria.  I don't find the Church's position on the sinfulness of homosexuality terribly compelling, but I'm willing to let the ongoing deliberation and prayer of the Church to sort out which of us is in the right.

However, 2 has no bearing on any of those things.  Legal rights are inherently secular, and to the extent that they are above and beyond the protections espoused by the church, seem to me to be beyond reproach.  This is especially true given the Church's theological commitment to freedom of religion: there are faiths that permit or even laud gay marriage.  If the church is committed to true religious freedom, it is imperative that other faiths be permitted to operate with the same legal capacities and protections as the Catholic Church.

All of that, however, is sideshow stuff compared to the Church's scandalous position on adoption by gays.  The Church has no massive public campaign objecting to adoption by remarried couples; to my knowledge it has no animosity at all to such adoptions.  But, from a Catholic theology perspective, such people are also publicly engaged in mortal sin.  For reasons that escape me, the Church has decided that it is more important to punish and restrict a particular class of sinners than it is to provide loving homes to orphans. I find myself disgusted by my Mother Church's insistence that it prefers keeping children in foster care and orphanages to permitting them to be loved, raised, and cared for by a sinning couple.  If any fellow Catholics have a thoughtful dissent to this sentiment, I'd love to hear it.

Gay Marriage

I just saw this letter from the american catholic bishops .  Generally, I'm a fan of Catholic policy, and this statement rings right for me the majority of the time, but I can't help but feel that they're misstating (in line with this blog's policy of assuming that people when wrong are making mistakes and not being purposefully malicious) the case for state recognized marriage.  Here's what they say

  In close connection with our defense of all human life and particularly the most vulnerable among us, we stand firm in our support for marriage which is and can only be a faithful, exclusive, lifelong union of one man and one woman.  There is good reason why the law has always recognized this, and why it should continue to do so.  In a manner unlike any other relationship, marriage makes a unique and irreplaceable contribution to the common good of society, especially through the procreation and education of children.  Children need, deserve and yearn for a mother and a father.  All human societies in every era of history, differing greatly among themselves in many other ways, have understood this simple wisdom.  No other kinds of personal relationships can be justly made equivalent or analogous to the commitment of a husband and a wife in marriage, because no other relationship can connect children to the two people who brought them into the world.  For this reason, we will continue to vigorously support the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and strongly oppose legislative or executive measures that seek to redefine or erode the meaning of marriage.  We suggest Congressional oversight of executive actions that have the effect of undermining DOMA, such as the expansion of spousal benefits to two persons of the same sex, and the weak defense of DOMA in court against constitutional challenge.  We will seek to reflect respect for the family in every policy and program, to protect the rights of children, and to uphold the rights and responsibilities of mothers and fathers to care for their children.  We will also continue to monitor legislation and federal regulations that protect our children and families from the destructive repercussions of pornography, which degrades human sexuality and marital commitment.

So first of all, out of spite, let's talk about the factual inaccuracies.  Historically, in fact biblically, marriage was recognized as being neither exclusive nor lifelong, and certainly not between one man and one woman.  Old Testament marriage  traditionally recognized polygamous marriages as valid, and allowed for divorce pretty much any time.  Now, Christ reorganized a lot of the thinking about that with statements in the New Testament, but it's certainly untrue that "human societies in every era of history [...] have understood this simple wisdom".  The status of homosexual relationships in society has also varied greatly from time to time and culture to culture.  The bishops make a fair point regarding a possible unique benefit of marriage, but by no means do all marriages possess these characteristics.  It looks like America's divorce rate is roughly half of its marriage rate, which certainly aces the whole both parents with their children idea.  Anyway, if the states interest in marriage is exclusively with regards to stable child rearing, then it seems we should only provide marital benefits to families where both parents and their biological child are present.  I don't think the bishops want this, but if they admit it they might have to admit that they don't have a point.

Basically, I think people are worried about gay marriage because they feel like it imposes upon their concept of sacramental marriage.  Frankly, this is stupid.  Law historically recognized marriage for the purpose of simplifying family oriented legal issues, like inheritance and the divvying up of property following divorce.  Gay couples encounter the same problems, and should be given the same help working out those issues.  This state provided legal aid has nothing to do with sacramental marriage and shouldn't be considered along side it.  Personally, I vote that we abolish marriage as a legal concept, replace it uniformly with civil union, and permit any people entering into voluntary, permanent co-dependence and cohabitation to benefit from it.