Baby showers for pregnant teens?

[gmarie21]

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

You keep saying the “Churches approach to forgiveness”, yet I keep telling you the REALITY of the Church’s approach to forgiveness. I, as well as others here, have explained EXACTLY how the Church has approached us single, unwed mothers when we sought forgiveness during our pregnancies, yet in your hard heart you have chosen to ignore the reality. I have spoken and been counseled by Opus Dei priests, priests who celebrate the Tridintine mass only, Cannon Lawyer priests, and very outspoken “you must follow the magesterium and here’s what the Catholic Church teaches” priests, and all have counseled me the same way, once forgiven, yes, there are consequences (raising a child alone, which is EXTREMELY difficult first emotionally, second financially and third spiritually) but if you are blessed with a support system, praise God for the gift of your support system. Not a single one said you must “wear the Scarlet Letter” and always publically ask for forgiveness and show you’re repentant to EVERY single person who has witnessed the fact that you are a sinner (if that were the case, I’d have to repent of my sin to EVERY SINGLE PERSON AT MASS, ON THE STREET, AT THE STORE, IN MY FAMILY, ETC. b/c my being pregnant without a ring on my finger was evedence that I sinned).

I know for me, my support system included my family who attended a baby shower for my daughter and supplied her (via me) with the car seat, nursery furniture, clothing, baby laundry detergent, some toys, and other little items one needs for a baby. The ones who had issues with my situation b/c they had the same attitude that you had. However, they too have sinned and seem to forget their sin b/c it wasn’t so public, yet it still hurts (and has hurt) those around them.

 

[mosher]

You keep saying the “Churches approach to forgiveness”, yet I keep telling you the REALITY of the Church’s approach to forgiveness. I, as well as others here, have explained EXACTLY how the Church has approached us single, unwed mothers when we sought forgiveness during our pregnancies, yet in your hard heart you have chosen to ignore the reality. I have spoken and been counseled by Opus Dei priests, priests who celebrate the Tridintine mass only, Cannon Lawyer priests, and very outspoken “you must follow the magesterium and here’s what the Catholic Church teaches” priests, and all have counseled me the same way, once forgiven, yes, there are consequences (raising a child alone, which is EXTREMELY difficult first emotionally, second financially and third spiritually) but if you are blessed with a support system, praise God for the gift of your support system. Not a single one said you must “wear the Scarlet Letter” and always publically ask for forgiveness and show you’re repentant to EVERY single person who has witnessed the fact that you are a sinner (if that were the case, I’d have to repent of my sin to EVERY SINGLE PERSON AT MASS, ON THE STREET, AT THE STORE, IN MY FAMILY, ETC. b/c my being pregnant without a ring on my finger was evedence that I sinned).

I know for me, my support system included my family who attended a baby shower for my daughter and supplied her (via me) with the car seat, nursery furniture, clothing, baby laundry detergent, some toys, and other little items one needs for a baby. The ones who had issues with my situation b/c they had the same attitude that you had. However, they too have sinned and seem to forget their sin b/c it wasn’t so public, yet it still hurts (and has hurt) those around them.

This is an emotional tirade and not an answer. I was simply stating that the Church mandates different types of penance for different types of public sins. This is not directly an issue about the topic at hand. Rather it is only about the issue that some sins need public repentance - not necessarily the one at the heart of this thread. This is in no way reflecting a “hard heart” but rather just the opposite.

 

[gam197]

originally posted by boppaid
Is that really considered scandelous or did I read that wrong?

This was in response to the fact that I was denied a mass by the church because I did not marry a catholic. Another relative was denied a wedding at all because she was going to marry a man who was divorced but had not had the marriage annuled. She has been married to him for 36 years now. She is a great catholic.The church does put restrictions on church events. I don’t know if it is for scandal?

 

[kim3260]

This was in response to the fact that I was denied a mass by the church because I did not marry a catholic. Another relative was denied a wedding at all because she was going to marry a man who was divorced but had not had the marriage annuled. She has been married to him for 36 years now. She is a great catholic.The church does put restrictions on church events. I don’t know if it is for scandal?

Why this subject is so close to home for me is a family member became pregnant out of wedlock had her baby and lived a good clean life after, she met and married a very good man, (not the baby’s father) when she was in her 20’s She was married in the Catholic Church, (with her little son as Ring bearer), because she Confessed her Sin way back when. She is a good woman. Should she be treated differently for the rest of her life for a sin she committed at 16? Our acceptence of her did not cause other teens in the family to go out and get pregnant, actually they saw the real problems a young single mom has.

If we deny her our forgivness and acceptence then we just feed into the pro-abortion people who say “Ok where are you pro-lifers when these kids are born” why give these people more fuel? think about it. That is one of their big speeches, where are you when the mother chooses life and when the baby is born.

 

[vern_humphrey]

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.

Are you saying we are omniscient and omnipotent? That we, the laity, can forgive sins?

We can only forgive offenses against ourselves – we cannot forgive sins. That is not our provinence.

What we can do is love the sinner. What we can do is help a young mother. What we can do is show appreciation to her for not killing her baby

 

[gam197]

Even though I was denied a mass and she a wedding, it actually help to make us stronger.

It made us wake up early on and do the right things.

Having a baby is difficult and I understand that that is brutal at a young age. That is why I am concerned as to what kind of message we send to all young people.

 

[kim3260]

Ok granted a “party” is no big thing, but if we keep up this thinking, does she and the child have to go to the other end of the “park” with her stroller because she might cause a scandal? Should her child be denied “kindergartenl” because his unmarried mother may cause a scandal? CCD? the list goes on…
Enough already! the young woman did committ a Sin but it is between her and God, not us to decide her fate and cast her aside.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Ok granted a “party” is no big thing, but if we keep up this thinking, does she and the child have to go to the other end of the “park” with her stroller because she might cause a scandal? Should her child be denied “kindergartenl” because his unmarried mother may cause a scandal? CCD? the list goes on…
Enough already! the young woman did committ a Sin but it is between her and God, not us to decide her fate and cast her aside.

You make a very good point. When we advocate stigmatizing this young girl, it tells more about us than about her.

 

[JezuUfamTobie]

This is an emotional tirade and not an answer.

I don’t think she purported to answer your question, but it was a response. Since as human beings our thoughts and emotions are intertwined, emotion will certainly have its place in considering whether one should attend a certain party. Pure logic has its place, but it cannot calculate an answer to any moral question all by itself. I am sure you realize that your reasons for your own position/approach are at least partially rooted in your own emotions and personal experiences.

This is simply an emotion-laden subject, so in discussing it we have to be prepared to deal charitably with that fact. As we are made in the image of God, it seems reasonable to allow that–while we should not allow our emotions alone to rule us–exploring why we feel the way we do can often give us insight into what we ought to do.

I was simply stating that the Church mandates different types of penance for different types of public sins. This is not directly an issue about the topic at hand. Rather it is only about the issue that some sins need public repentance - not necessarily the one at the heart of this thread. This is in no way reflecting a “hard heart” but rather just the opposite.

I do believe that you and setter originally implied that the sin at hand in this thread does require a public repentance, if not a public penance, and that a good priest would assign a public penance in cases in which others have been scandalized (put in spiritual danger) by the sin. If you’ve changed your mind that’s fine. But I am curious. Would you please point me to the document or Catechism reference that states that a confessor must assign a public penance for some sins? Or even that he should consider it? All I can find is paragraph 1447 which states:

1447 Over the centuries the concrete form in which the Church has exercised this power received from the Lord has varied considerably. During the first centuries the reconciliation of Christians who had committed particularly grave sins after their Baptism (for example, idolatry, murder, or adultery) was tied to a very rigorous discipline, according to which penitents had to do public penance for their sins, often for years, before receiving reconciliation. To this “order of penitents” (which concerned only certain grave sins), one was only rarely admitted and in certain regions only once in a lifetime. During the seventh century Irish missionaries, inspired by the Eastern monastic tradition, took to continental Europe the “private” practice of penance, which does not require public and prolonged completion of penitential works before reconciliation with the Church. From that time on, the sacrament has been performed in secret between penitent and priest.

This seems to refute your assertion, but please do correct me if I am overlooking something.

I also take issue with your definition of “admonish the sinner” and with your approach. I do not believe that admonishment of the sinner (as an act of mercy) should be interpreted to include punishment by a lay person who has no natural or lawful authority over that particular sinner. Admonishment has a varying success rate, depending largely on the manner in which it is done. If you were to avoid a party as an attempt to admonish a fornicator, you may be intending to be merciful with that action, but I do not believe you would be successful in swaying that sinner. An unrepentant fornicator does not believe as you believe, and if you cannot convince him or her of the truth, a stern admonishment will do no good. Because we as Christians have our hands on the Truth, the Way, and the Life, we have a grave responsibility toward the sinner to inform him in a way that can reach past his hard heart and closed ears. This necessitates, in my opinion, a large dose of kindness.

It seems that this debate boils down to:

1. Does a baby shower for an unwed mother cause scandal to the young and impressionable (including the mother), or does it not?
2. Is avoiding the shower an effective means of admonishing the sinner, or is it not?
3. Might avoiding the shower for the sake of admonishing the mother cause spiritual harm?

Obviously, I would answer “no” to the first two questions and “yes” to the last. I can think of no circumstances in which a private, gentle conversation would not be more effective. Attempting to admonish the mother by avoiding a party for her child seems like it runs a high risk of distancing her from God (or at least from you) in a particularly emotionally vulnerable time.

(BTW, it would be really cool if certain people who have participated could keep their tone civil. I think this is a very interesting thread and it would be a shame for it to be closed.)

 

[Kendy]

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.

Show us.

 

[gam197]

Depending on the situation, there ia a baby shower and later a baptism where gifts are given.

Granted many people don’t baptize their baby but it would be nice if all would baptize their babies and that could be the main event that people attended.

 

[jmcrae]

This was in response to the fact that I was denied a mass by the church because I did not marry a catholic.

The most likely reason for not giving you a wedding Mass would be that your husband is unable to receive Holy Communion, because he is not a Catholic and does not affirm the beliefs that receiving Holy Communion signifies.

Also, his family members would also be unable to receive Holy Communion, as well, and a lot of people don’t understand that that doesn’t mean we don’t love them - they do take it quite personally, because for them, Holy Communion is a friendship meal, symbolic of Jesus’ love for us, and it wouldn’t occur to them in their own churches not to include everyone, including unbaptized people and atheists - because to them, it means, “We love you” and there is no statement of belief or loyalty to the Church connected with it.

Rather than explain to people who were already feeling left out that they couldn’t receive, your priest did the wiser thing and had the other kind of wedding, where that issue would just not come up at all, and nobody would feel hurt or left out.

It was out of consideration for his feelings that they went with the other style of wedding, instead, since it would have been really awkward for him to stand up in front of everyone and be refused Holy Communion at his own wedding.

Another relative was denied a wedding at all because she was going to marry a man who was divorced but had not had the marriage annuled.

Your friend was “denied a wedding” because she was attempting to marry a man who is already married to someone else.

She has been married to him for 36 years now. She is a great catholic.

Apart from the fact that she’s been living for 36 years with another woman’s husband, of course.

The church does put restrictions on church events. I don’t know if it is for scandal?

The church will not make a pretense of doing something that, in reality can’t happen, or can’t be done, due to an existing situation - for example, if someone is already married to someone else, they will not put on a “wedding” and pretend that someone is “getting married to” a second person.

 

[mosher]

Show us.

See all canons from Book VI Part I, Part II Especially canons 1326, 1328, all of Chapter 1 & 2 of Title IV. 1339 P2, 1340 P1, 1347 P2, Also with respect to canon 1369. Also note canon 981and 982.

Pure logic has its place, but it cannot calculate an answer to any moral question all by itself. I am sure you realize that your reasons for your own position/approach are at least partially rooted in your own emotions and personal experiences.

My position is from one of disinterest. For me this is an ethical question and not an emotional question. However, one cannot say that emotions factor into the determination of an ethical question. This would be itself contrary to objective morals. Application also should not subject to emotions unless those emotions are themselves subject to reason (ordered).

As we are made in the image of God, it seems reasonable to allow that–while we should not allow our emotions alone to rule us–exploring why we feel the way we do can often give us insight into what we ought to do.

Not in the least. It is not our passions that are like God but rather our Rational Soul as is said by St. Thomas and other Theologians. The oughtness of things must be determined completely apart from subjective experience but rather in the confines of objective principles. Ethical judgment cannot be done from the subjective but only from the objective.

I do believe that you and setter originally implied that the sin at hand in this thread does require a public repentance, if not a public penance, and that a good priest would assign a public penance in cases in which others have been scandalized (put in spiritual danger) by the sin.

I am sorry if it seems that I implied this but that is not the case. I was only stating that in the face of scandal we have an obligation to not only avoid scandal but also an obligation to repair scandal if we are the cause. In my view of this it seems that a baby shower adds to the scandal that already exists and does not act to diminish the scandal.

I also take issue with your definition of “admonish the sinner” and with your approach. I do not believe that admonishment of the sinner (as an act of mercy) should be interpreted to include punishment by a lay person who has no natural or lawful authority over that particular sinner.

Correct only a cleric or a person who has lawful authority over the person such as a parent can give a punishment. However, I am not nor have I suggested a punishment.

Admonishment has a varying success rate, depending largely on the manner in which it is done. If you were to avoid a party as an attempt to admonish a fornicator, you may be intending to be merciful with that action, but I do not believe you would be successful in swaying that sinner. An unrepentant fornicator does not believe as you believe, and if you cannot convince him or her of the truth, a stern admonishment will do no good. Because we as Christians have our hands on the Truth, the Way, and the Life, we have a grave responsibility toward the sinner to inform him in a way that can reach past his hard heart and closed ears. This necessitates, in my opinion, a large dose of kindness.

Yes you are correct and application is very important. It is only prudential judgment that can determine if it is a time for empathizing or a time for rebuking of the individual.

Obviously, I would answer “no” to the first two questions and “yes” to the last. I can think of no circumstances in which a private, gentle conversation would not be more effective. Attempting to admonish the mother by avoiding a party for her child seems like it runs a high risk of distancing her from God (or at least from you) in a particularly emotionally vulnerable time.

And here seems to the the impasse. In your identified questions I would have to say that said baby shower does in fact cause scandal as in the mind of some youth it can be seen as a “pseudo-reward” of sorts for having a child. The youth love attention and what better way to get attention.

Also, I don’t see not attending the shower necessarily as a form of admonishment. Rather I see that in our obligation to not participate in scandal. Admonishment would come in prudential private form and not in public protest. That I think would cause grave harm.

 

[mosher]

Depending on the situation, there ia a baby shower and later a baptism where gifts are given.

Granted many people don’t baptize their baby but it would be nice if all would baptize their babies and that could be the main event that people attended.

As an aside I wish that parents would celebrate their child’s baptismal day as another birthday type celebration. I think that it would do wonders for the Catholic life of the family.

 

[Aleii]

Also, I don’t see not attending the shower necessarily as a form of admonishment. Rather I see that in our obligation to not participate in scandal.

How does this not contradict what is said here, which says there is nothing wrong with attending?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=16968

“but if you wish to do so there is nothing wrong with attending.”

 

[kim3260]

You know something if I was a member of this girl’s family or close friend I would not want that “Holier than Thou” behavior there anyway, you probably do everyone a favor by staying home.

 

[gmarie21]

I am sorry if it seems that I implied this but that is not the case. I was only stating that in the face of scandal we have an obligation to not only avoid scandal but also an obligation to repair scandal if we are the cause. In my view of this it seems that a baby shower adds to the scandal that already exists and does not act to diminish the scandal.

Well, many (and I mean the majority) of KofCs yearly do a collection to help single pregnant women (my dad’s chapter did) so that they can have a psudo baby shower from the local Catholic pregnancy center (or Catholic Charities). I also know that many parishes have Project Gabriel, which also hosts baby showers for single pregnant women. All priests, including Canon Lawyers, I’ve spoken with say that there is no scandal caused by such baby showers. If the Catholic Church and it’s parishes and organizations do not have issues with hosting baby showers for unwed pregnant women, then I would say that it is a safe bet that it is okay to host and/or attend a baby shower for one’s own family/friend who may be in an unwed pregnancy situation.

I would also have to agree with kim3260 in the fact that the prideful, holier than thou, should stay home. Who needs someone at a celebration of life who ignores the plank in their own eye?

Also, if ever one day you’re blessed to be married with a child on the way, a woman who is pregnant should have as little stress as possible b/c the reality is that her emotions (and stress level) can affect the baby in minor to severe ways.

 

[boppaid]

gmarie, excellent post.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

How do you feel about the family of a unmarried pregnant teen giving their daughter/neice a baby shower?
Would you attend such a baby shower?

I think we should celebrate life. Attending the shower is not endorsing the sinful behavior that got her that way. It is a celebration of the life that God is bringing into this world. The alternative is that same young lady getting an abortion and thus murdering her child. Yes, I would go to that shower for the purpose of keeping the lines of communication and compassion open to her.

Jesus told us it is what is inside a person that corrupts us humans, not what is on the surface like ink under the skin.

Think of a car engine that has a serious problem down deep in the engine block. And this problem forces oil out of the engine unto the pavement. Now, someone comes along and replaces the oil filter, gaskets and tries to seal anywhere where oil comes out of the engine. Did this person really fix the real problem? Now lets say, a mechanic of compassion comes along, opens up the engine block replaces or repairs the real problem, say a defective oil pump, and puts the engine back together. Which did the right thing? The person putting emphasize on the sinful behaviors of the engine – that is spilling oil on the pavement or the compassionate machanic who replaced and repaired the deeper true problem?

My suggestion, along with your practical gift, give the young lady a framed copy of the love chapter, I cor 13 and show her compassion, so that you may have the chance of inviting her to church so that our mechanic can repair or replace the real problem.

When Jesus ate with sinners he was not putting his stamp of approval on their sinful behaviors.

Matthew 9:9-13 (King James Version)

9And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him.

10And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples.

11And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, **Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners? **

12But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.

13But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

 

[BLB_Oregon]

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

I don’t follow you. Someone asked a CA apologist this very question, and the answer was “You don’t have to go, but you don’t sin if you do.”

If you think the apologist was in error, then you have bigger fish to fry than me.