Baby showers for pregnant teens?

[mosher]

I can’t remember anyone ever coming up to the front of the church and making a public statement that they were repentent for having missed mass due to their personal choice. When someone doesn’t show up for the mass they usually attend, it is public (people notice they’re not there). I have NEVER had a priest tell me in the confessional that even though my sins are forgiven, I must publically continue to repent (for those sins that were public). Pride is a sin that also is publically witnessed, yet most NEVER publically repent. The whole point of the confessional is that you are repenting and asking Christ for forgiveness, therefore, asking HIS CHURCH for forgiveness (through the confessional).

Such penance is usualy reserved to the priest to judge if it is necessary or not. Some sins he must require a public witness and even withhold absolution if it is not done. This all depends on the manner and level of the sin. A public sin is not one that is just witnessed by others in public. A public sin is one that gives grave scandal. This is very different than the examples you cited.

For those not going but still bringing a gift by privately:
What if she said as much to you?

I would do the same as before except the private conversations would be very different reflecting the different disposition of the mother.

 

[gmarie21]

Such penance is usualy reserved to the priest to judge if it is necessary or not. Some sins he must require a public witness and even withhold absolution if it is not done. This all depends on the manner and level of the sin. A public sin is not one that is just witnessed by others in public. A public sin is one that gives grave scandal. This is very different than the examples you cited.

Missing mass and premarital sex are on the same level of sin, they are both mortal. Also, a couple who is married outside of the Church may attend mass, and if their marriage is eventually convalidated/blessed by the Church, they are not required to “repent” infront of the whole parish, yet their sin was EXTREMELY PUBLIC AND SCANDALOUS!!! They can NEVER repent unless their marriage is convalidated or if they choose to live as brother and sister. Yet, we don’t ever see anyone making public declarations of their forgiven, scandalous sin. A mortal sin is mortal for a reason, and all sin gives scandal. To think you are better than other sinners is SCANDALOUS too.

 

[setter]

If your wronged spouse was ready to throw a party, I’d cook the food and pay for the flowers myself. Hallelujah!

If you had a friend in the world ready to throw you a baby shower as a single mother, I’d think somebody had some faith that your commitment to doing the right thing was real. That would be enough for me.

Let’s remember, too, though, that the father in the prodigal son story went out to meet both of his sons…even the son out back who hadn’t shown the least bit of remorse for his jealousy and self-righteousness. God meets us where we are and has compassion upon us where we are. If we’ll only stop to listen, God is there to speak to us.

The key factor in every scenario is that the sinner is repentent, and proportionately displayed as the sin was publically impacted upon others.

 

[setter]

Just out of curiosity…what type of repentance is needed to demonstrate that she needn’t be punished any longer for her behavior?

The show of repentence, i.e., reparation, would depend on the impact of the public sin and the need to make amends to undo the negative effects of the public sin.

REPARATION. The act or fact of making amends. It implies an attempt to restore things to their normal or sound conditions, as they were before something wrong was done. It applies mainly to recompense for the losses sustained or the harm caused by some morally bad action.

therealpresence.org/dictionary/rdict.htm

 

[JezuUfamTobie]

Has anybody pointed out the relevant answer to this question from the Ask an Apologist forum?

May I go to a baby shower for a single mother?

Michelle Arnold answers:

"A baby shower is a small celebration that is supposed to outfit a mother with a few of the things she will need to take care of her baby. It is also a means of celebrating a birth. The circumstances of the child’s conception may constitute grave matter for the parents, but supporting them in accepting the good result God brought from their morally problematic action can be a practical working out of a prolife worldview.

“You are certainly not required to attend such an event… but if you wish to do so there is nothing wrong with attending.”

 

[JezuUfamTobie]

I would say go and encourage others to go, but bring ONLY baby items. No CDs (except nursery rhyme stuff), no stereos, nothing fun. Baby items, and possibly maternity clothes.

Since baby showers typically take place very close to the birth, the mother would have no need for maternity clothes–she has already been wearing them for quite some time. It seems like some people on this thread think that a baby shower is a “pregnancy announcing party”. Maybe understanding that the shower takes place close to the birth would help them see that women regard showers as a celebration of the baby’s life, not the circumstances that led to his conception.

So here is a different twist on the situation, for those who are accepting the invitation:
What if you attended the shower and the mother-to-be was matter-of-factly and bluntly stating that she had a good time in her choices, she was doing OK, and that she’d do the same thing all over?

I would still go. In fact, this situation came up in my life just a few months ago. I attended the shower anyhow, and provided a compassionate listening ear for my friend throughout her pregnancy and afterward. She has since been inquiring about the Catholic faith.

Does anybody think she would have felt drawn to our Church if I had refused to attend her shower on the ground of her being a scandalous sinner?

 

[Julianna]

**
I agree with leonie on this one. My daughter got pregnant at 19. The sperm donor, hit the bricks… I went online, contacted several adoption agencies, maternity homes (ironically, the catholic ones were no where to be found)…my DH and I presented the info to her, and said, “pick”. She said at that time she was keeping the baby. My DH and I said, “fine”, so when will you be moving out? Now mind you, she was living at home, going to college, working part time. She said, “you mean, I can’t stay here?” We said, “no”. Of course her friends thought my DH and I were monsters. Where is it written that my DH and I, inches close to retirement have to raise a child, while my daughter is still practicing bad behavior? Not happening, my DH and I refused to do it. We set out to a Christian maternity home when she was about 5 months along. The home was very strict, there were rules to follow, no headphones, all music had to be pre-approved, if you were over 18, you had to work part time, if you were under 18, you had to be enrolled in school. The money you received from your job, would be placed in a savings account, and you would receive a small stipened. My DH and I had privilege to list who could and who could not “visit” her at the home, as we would be contributing a small fee for her to stay there. She purposely botched the whole thing and the home refused to take her. We drove home. When we got home, I told her she was not coming in the house, to take her suitcase,belongings out of my car, get into hers, and leave, period. She stayed gone, for over 2 weeks. Did I cry, did I worry, yes, I did, about that baby. I knew that my daughter was a Jessica Simpson, princess and was not about to live out of her car, or sleep on a friends sofa. She came home one day, and said, “I’ll go, and I will place this baby for adoption”. While standing at the door, I handed her the phone and the name of another maternity home. She called, and we left that weekend. She hated it. Too bad, so sad. The adoption agency we all worked with was wonderful. She chose OPEN adoption. She chose the parents. He was born Dec 20, 2005, and the adoptive parents took him home on Christmas Eve, thank you Jesus…a family was born. We will be getting together with the adoptive parents on Thanksgiving, and we have been inundated with photos, videos, and my daughter receives a phone call from them every 3 months. She is back in school and working. And the little guy, has a mommy and a daddy. The couple she chose is Catholic. God is working for sure. We received pictures of the christening and just got a picture of him in his Tigger costume…too cute.

No, I would not go to the shower…I would ask my friend to counsel her daughter about OPEN adoption. It’s a win-win for all.
Juli**

WOW! I’m glad the Blessed Mother’s family didn’t take that attitude when she turned up pregnant and unmarried.!

Yeah, but Joseph stayed with her, and married her. Big difference, dearie.

 

[Julianna]

I still strongly believe that even if the shower is for the mother, it should be a great celebration. Celebration that she chose life, and a celebration that she is going to give new life from God. I think she should be encouraged and supported, despite her sin. I think anything less is judgemental and not what Jesus would do.

What about “his” sin? It takes two to tango. Everyone here talks about the “girls” sin…what about “him”?

 

[jmcrae]

What about “his” sin? It takes two to tango. Everyone here talks about the “girls” sin…what about “him”?

Ah, but he didn’t commit the “sin” of getting himself pregnant, did he?

Just to be clear, I’m on your side. The sin occurred when they had sex outside of marriage.

Becoming pregnant/fathering a child is never a sin (despite being a major faux pas), but only the act that led to it - and that act is equally sinful whether a pregnancy results from it, or not.

Everyone is focused on the pregnant girl like she’s the only one who did something “bad,” but chances are that she got talked into it by the boy, by other girls (I had a girlfriend when I was a teen who kept introducing me to boys who wanted to have sex with me - I eventually broke off that friendship; it just kept getting weirder and weirder, with her), and by a culture that says, “Okay - just don’t get* caught,* that’s all.”

 

[BLB_Oregon]

Yeah, but Joseph stayed with her, and married her. Big difference, dearie.

Let us remember, though: When Mary uttered her Magnificat, she had no idea what Joseph was going to say. In fact, in the absence of the angel, he fully intended to reject her.

Notice that during the Annunciation, God did not promise Mary a husband, and she did not ask for one. She very sensibly asked just how she was going to get pregnant, and when that was answered, she was on board for whatever came with it.

We ought not just assume that Mary suffered no consequences for getting pregnant well before she entered Joseph’s home. We know from their reception in Bethlehem that the full import of her pregnancy was apparent to no one before the birth itself, and then only to those God saw fit to make privy to the full story…which was not every Tom, Dick, and Susan in Bethlehem* or *Nazareth.
There were no palm fronds being laid down in front of that little burro.

Think of what David did to get Bethsheba. Yet Jesus is descended from Solomon. He is descended from Tamar and Judah. God can cope with scandals.

To my mind, JezuUfamTobie has the best answers yet:

I would still go. In fact, this situation came up in my life just a few months ago. I attended the shower anyhow, and provided a compassionate listening ear for my friend throughout her pregnancy and afterward. She has since been inquiring about the Catholic faith.

Does anybody think she would have felt drawn to our Church if I had refused to attend her shower on the ground of her being a scandalous sinner?

Has anybody pointed out the relevant answer to this question from the Ask an Apologist forum?

May I go to a baby shower for a single mother?

Michelle Arnold answers:

"A baby shower is a small celebration that is supposed to outfit a mother with a few of the things she will need to take care of her baby. It is also a means of celebrating a birth. The circumstances of the child’s conception may constitute grave matter for the parents, but supporting them in accepting the good result God brought from their morally problematic action can be a practical working out of a prolife worldview.

“You are certainly not required to attend such an event… but if you wish to do so there is nothing wrong with attending.”

Anybody who thinks they are owed a public apology for the sins of others is welcome to explain how their thinking differs in kind rather than just degree from that depicted in The Scarlet Letter.
It’s got me stumped.

 

[MariaG]

Yeah, but Joseph stayed with her, and married her. Big difference, dearie.

But as a consecrated virgin, who obviously (at least apparently obviously ) broke her vows and had sex, it would have not been an easy time for either Mary or Joseph. Once Joseph did not put her away from him, all would assume that he had had sex with this young women who had been placed into his protection.

I imagine this stigma could have followed them around for a long while.

 

[boppaid]

The show of repentence, i.e., reparation, would depend on the impact of the public sin and the need to make amends to undo the negative effects of the public sin.

REPARATION. The act or fact of making amends. It implies an attempt to restore things to their normal or sound conditions, as they were before something wrong was done. It applies mainly to recompense for the losses sustained or the harm caused by some morally bad action.

therealpresence.org/dictionary/rdict.htm

And what would the girl need to do in order to fulfill this requirement?

 

[boppaid]

What about “his” sin? It takes two to tango. Everyone here talks about the “girls” sin…what about “him”?

Well, since the thread is about baby showers, and those are traditionally given for the mothers and not the fathers, I think that’s why you’re not seeing anything about the fathers in this thread. I don’t think anyone is disputing the sin of the father.

 

[mosher]

Missing mass and premarital sex are on the same level of sin, they are both mortal. Also, a couple who is married outside of the Church may attend mass, and if their marriage is eventually convalidated/blessed by the Church, they are not required to “repent” infront of the whole parish, yet their sin was EXTREMELY PUBLIC AND SCANDALOUS!!! They can NEVER repent unless their marriage is convalidated or if they choose to live as brother and sister. Yet, we don’t ever see anyone making public declarations of their forgiven, scandalous sin. A mortal sin is mortal for a reason, and all sin gives scandal. To think you are better than other sinners is SCANDALOUS too.

Look, I’m just saying what Church law requires. Your objection to my treatment is an objection against the way the Church treats various levels of public sin. I would suggest that before you impose your idea of all mortal sins are equal you take some time to read through the Code of Canon Law. While they all are equal in what they do to the soul in relationship to God it is not true to say that all have the same ramifications as far as penance incurred for the sin. This is not my opinion nor is it a theory it is the law of the Church.

 

[BLB_Oregon]

Such penance is usualy reserved to the priest to judge if it is necessary or not.** Some sins he must require a public witness and even withhold absolution if it is not done.** This all depends on the manner and level of the sin. A public sin is not one that is just witnessed by others in public. A public sin is one that gives grave scandal. This is very different than the examples you cited.

So, you’re saying that when Jesus told the woman caught in the act of adultery that she was not condemned, He would have been breaking Canon Law because He didn’t require her to confess publicly? (There is not a word in that passage that indicates she expressed contrition for her scandalous behavior.)

Certainly an unwed mother is guilty of no worse than a woman literally caught in the act of adultery, yet Jesus refused to condemn her. He said, “Go, and sin no more.”

Likewise, he ate and drank with prostitutes. Not former prostitutes. Prostitutes. How scandalous was that? Obviously, avoiding scandal means avoiding unnecessary scandal, not avoiding every situation that could give someone an excuse to misconstrue your intentions.

If you don’t want to go to the party, don’t go, but do not try to make staying home or insisting on a public act of contrition as if these were moral imperatives. They are not. They may be your discernment of what is ultimately most compassionate and most likely to lead to virtue in the young woman and others like her, but that is all they are.

 

[vern_humphrey]

So, you’re saying that when Jesus told the woman caught in the act of adultery that she was not condemned, He would have been breaking Canon Law because He didn’t require her to confess publicly? (There is not a word in that passage that indicates she expressed contrition for her scandalous behavior.)

Certainly an unwed mother is guilty of no worse than a woman literally caught in the act of adultery, yet Jesus refused to condemn her. He said, “Go, and sin no more.”

Likewise, he ate and drank with prostitutes. Not former prostitutes. Prostitutes. How scandalous was that? Obviously, avoiding scandal means avoiding unnecessary scandal, not avoiding every situation that could give someone an excuse to misconstrue your intentions.

If you don’t want to go to the party, don’t go, but do not try to make staying home or insisting on a public act of contrition as if these were moral imperatives. They are not. They may be your discernment of what is ultimately most compassionate and most likely to lead to virtue in the young woman and others like her, but that is all they are.

Jesus, being God, has no obligation to explain Himself to us. He knows the innermost thoughts of us all, and can forgive our sins as He pleases.

But a baby shower is not about sin, but about a baby. Whatever sins the parents have committed, the baby is not responsible. Let us rejoice that its mother has not chosen to kill it, but to raise it – and let us give her a little help.

 

[boppaid]

Jesus, being God, has no obligation to explain Himself to us. He knows the innermost thoughts of us all, and can forgive our sins as He pleases.

I’m sorry…I vehemetly disagree with your statement and inference that we should not emmulate Jesus’ reaction toward those sinners in the Bible as we are specifically called to be Christlike.

 

[kim3260]

Many pro-abortion people say “where are you pro-lifers when this kid is born.” Not that I ever would agree with those people, I must say after reading the nasty, judgemental and just down right mean things being said no wonder the fight to overturn Roe vs. Wade has been an uphill battle. With this behavior we are feeding them
The party for the most part is to get things for the child and to support the mother in her time of need. You don’t need to glorifiy it and but the young woman needs emotional help too. Acceptance from something as simple as a party lets her know, If I knew her I would say “yes you have made a mistake but you made the right choice and choosed life”

 

[childofmary1143]

The Power of a good example and of showing how we should act is a very compelling reason to go to a teen baby shower.

 

[mosher]

So, you’re saying that when Jesus told the woman caught in the act of adultery that she was not condemned, He would have been breaking Canon Law because He didn’t require her to confess publicly? (There is not a word in that passage that indicates she expressed contrition for her scandalous behavior.)

Certainly an unwed mother is guilty of no worse than a woman literally caught in the act of adultery, yet Jesus refused to condemn her. He said, “Go, and sin no more.”

Likewise, he ate and drank with prostitutes. Not former prostitutes. Prostitutes. How scandalous was that? Obviously, avoiding scandal means avoiding unnecessary scandal, not avoiding every situation that could give someone an excuse to misconstrue your intentions.

If you don’t want to go to the party, don’t go, but do not try to make staying home or insisting on a public act of contrition as if these were moral imperatives. They are not. They may be your discernment of what is ultimately most compassionate and most likely to lead to virtue in the young woman and others like her, but that is all they are.

So are you saying that the Churches approach to forgivness is in error?