"That would make the angels weep"

The title is a gem stolen from a sentence studding Jo McGowan, "To Welcome a Child: Gay Couples & Adoption," Commonweal, May 5, 2006.  What/who, you may ask, would inflict as much upon the angels?  Answer:  "The recent decision by Catholic Charities of Boston -- under unwarranted pressure from both the bishops of Massachusetts and from the Vatican -- to refuse to allow gay couples to adopt children."  The aforementioned decision, the persevering reader learns, "is a disgrace to all that the church stands for."  Wow.  Eventually, the peroration :  "Love is rare enough in this world of violence and meanness. Can we truly consider rejecting it because it comes from people of the same sex?"  That's grand, but please back up a bit for the richest line in the piece:  "Gay couples, having staked everything on love in a world that is often hostile toward them, let alone tolerant, are better suited than most to the challenges of caring for children who need unconditional acceptance."

I'm sorry, but, first, where is the evidence that gay couples' love makes them "better [though,breaktakingly, not best] suited than most" for caring for unwanted children?  Second, and related, please God that each of us could say that he or she has "staked everything on love."  But are members of gay couples categorically those individuals?  My reading is less clear.  Third, the Catholic and natural issue isn't really, is it, that the aforementioned/hypothesized love for a child is "from people of the same sex," but rather whether, for this purpose, the child is loved as a member of a family?  Two or seven people giving love, however blessed that phenomenon, do not a family make.  It's a signal achievement of our modern culture to deny that groups, such as families, amount to more than an aggregate of the members.  Finally, the local ordinaries' and the Holy See's exercising authority concerning the works of "Catholic Charities" cannot be the problem.  For the reasons suggested above, their doing so was not "unwarranted" (though I confess uncertainty as to the traditional meaning of "unwarranted").

I wouldn't have bothered, except that Commonweal should have done better.