Baby showers for pregnant teens?

[gam197]

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

This is an adult discussion and that seems an unfair statement. Granted it seems foolish to try to correct a whole society that has lost its moral compass by changing the baby shower to a baptimal shower. Maybe that is why the attack.

We are just discussing if there is any way we can help put more guidance back into the family.Someone mention “talking with the young girl”. Often it is not her fault. If she is the center of her world, she is allowed to do so by by parents and community. Sometimes it has nothing to do with the parents.If I even tried to mention anything to any member of my family, they would be very angry so any kind of discussion even to say. “Should your fifteen year old be going out with a twenty-two year old?” would be taken badly. I simply don’t say anything. They do know how I feel about abortion.

I was told that a very close family member who is 6 months pregnant didn’t tell her mom that she was because she was afraid her mom might take her down for an abortion. I’ve always told everyone I think girls or boys should not tell their parents until they are way past the point where parents would feel comfortable taking them for an abortion.

I thing of the story of David and “Basheeba”. There was no happy ending for David with the death his son Absalon. I would like young girls to make good decisions, that’s all.

 

[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.

gam,
This is an adult response I made, thank you. Prideful, boastful Holier than Thou behavior can do more harm then good in the long run. It’s just a simple party for pete’s sake, not publicly standing up and saying I believe in pre-martial sex.
Help, not hurt the girl and perhaps it can come back to you ten-fold.
PS–I’m 46

 

[vern_humphrey]

This is an adult discussion and that seems an unfair statement.

Those who choose to be so judgemental of others must not be surprised when others are judgemental, too.

Granted it seems foolish to try to correct a whole society that has lost its moral compass by changing the baby shower to a baptimal shower. Maybe that is why the attack.

It’s more than foolish – it’s holier than thou.

Nowere are we commanded to behave like that – Like the Pharasee in the Parable thanking God that he was better than the Publican.

We are just discussing if there is any way we can help put more guidance back into the family.

One good step is to get this new family – the young girl and her baby – off to a good start. Help them, don’t condemn them.

Someone mention “talking with the young girl”. Often it is not her fault.

Then why treat her like a pariah?

If she is the center of her world, she is allowed to do so by by parents and community. Sometimes it has nothing to do with the parents.If I even tried to mention anything to any member of my family, they would be very angry so any kind of discussion even to say. “Should your fifteen year old be going out with a twenty-two year old?” would be taken badly. I simply don’t say anything. They do know how I feel about abortion.

I was told that a very close family member who is 6 months pregnant didn’t tell her mom that she was because she was afraid her mom might take her down for an abortion. I’ve always told everyone I think girls or boys should not tell their parents until they are way past the point where parents would feel comfortable taking them for an abortion.

I thing of the story of David and “Basheeba”. There was no happy ending for David with the death his son Absalon. I would like young girls to make good decisions, that’s all.

Then start by making this child welcome – don’t stigmatize it and its mother.

 

[mosher]

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.”

I don’t agree with the treatment of the issue given by the apologist. It does not include any discussion on public 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.

No, praise God I will never be married my vocation is to the single life. But I am aware of the “needs” of a mother that is expecting. I did raise my two youngest siblings with my mother.

First, the KofC has no official program for this but some councils do this. I am not saying that one way or the other but since i work for the Knights I do have insight into its programs. What you re describing is a council to council issue and not something condoned or condemned by the Supreme Council.

Second, I am also aware of Project Gabrielle and the baby shower aspect is something I don’t currently support. Further, I would like to see where the priests and canon lawyers approve of this action. Further, it is not a matter for canon lawyers per se but rather for moral theologians. They are not the same. The law is built based on theology and morals not the other way around.

Third, “Truth is not determined by a majority vote.” - Benedict XVI

As I said earlier if you perceive that my position is based in or around pride or a “holier than thou” attitude you have missed the focus of my discussion to this point and rather are either shading these posts with that disposition or there is a lack of understanding of what those things actually are. On the contrary my concern is deeply rooted in love of neighbor because the young lady and the new child are not the only persons involved in this issue. Rather, society as a whole also is effected and as such society must be guarded. For this reason I continue to say that a public celebration is inappropriate but strong work from those surrounding the situation is necessary.

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.

Yes, I strongly disagree with the response given by the Apologist but that was not the reason for my question. My question was directed at the issue of treatment of different types of sins in different manners even to the point of making a public manifestation of repentance as is discussed in Canon Law when it refers to bringing the issue into the public forum. It seemed from your response earlier that you were advocating that all [mortal] sins were equal and all expiated through private confession - my question to you was in direct response to this error.

 

[mosher]

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.”

I don’t agree with the treatment of the issue given by the apologist. It does not include any discussion on public 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.

No, praise God I will never be married my vocation is to the single life. But I am aware of the “needs” of a mother that is expecting. I did raise my two youngest siblings with my mother.

First, the KofC has no official program for this but some councils do this. I am not saying that one way or the other but since i work for the Knights I do have insight into its programs. What you re describing is a council to council issue and not something condoned or condemned by the Supreme Council.

Second, I am also aware of Project Gabrielle and the baby shower aspect is something I don’t currently support. Further, I would like to see where the priests and canon lawyers approve of this action. Further, it is not a matter for canon lawyers per se but rather for moral theologians. They are not the same. The law is built based on theology and morals not the other way around.

Third, “Truth is not determined by a majority vote.” - Benedict XVI

As I said earlier if you perceive that my position is based in or around pride or a “holier than thou” attitude you have missed the focus of my discussion to this point and rather are either shading these posts with that disposition or there is a lack of understanding of what those things actually are. On the contrary my concern is deeply rooted in love of neighbor because the young lady and the new child are not the only persons involved in this issue. Rather, society as a whole also is effected and as such society must be guarded. For this reason I continue to say that a public celebration is inappropriate but strong work from those surrounding the situation is necessary.

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.

Yes, I strongly disagree with the response given by the Apologist but that was not the reason for my question. My question was directed at the issue of treatment of different types of sins in different manners even to the point of making a public manifestation of repentance as is discussed in Canon Law when it refers to bringing the issue into the public forum. It seemed from your response earlier that you were advocating that all [mortal] sins were equal and all expiated through private confession - my question to you was in direct response to this error.

 

[gmarie21]

I don’t agree with the treatment of the issue given by the apologist. It does not include any discussion on public scandal.

No, praise God I will never be married my vocation is to the single life. But I am aware of the “needs” of a mother that is expecting. I did raise my two youngest siblings with my mother.

First, the KofC has no official program for this but some councils do this. I am not saying that one way or the other but since i work for the Knights I do have insight into its programs. What you re describing is a council to council issue and not something condoned or condemned by the Supreme Council.

Second, I am also aware of Project Gabrielle and the baby shower aspect is something I don’t currently support. Further, I would like to see where the priests and canon lawyers approve of this action. Further, it is not a matter for canon lawyers per se but rather for moral theologians. They are not the same. The law is built based on theology and morals not the other way around.

Third, “Truth is not determined by a majority vote.” - Benedict XVI

As I said earlier if you perceive that my position is based in or around pride or a “holier than thou” attitude you have missed the focus of my discussion to this point and rather are either shading these posts with that disposition or there is a lack of understanding of what those things actually are. On the contrary my concern is deeply rooted in love of neighbor because the young lady and the new child are not the only persons involved in this issue. Rather, society as a whole also is effected and as such society must be guarded. For this reason I continue to say that a public celebration is inappropriate but strong work from those surrounding the situation is necessary.

Yes, I strongly disagree with the response given by the Apologist but that was not the reason for my question. My question was directed at the issue of treatment of different types of sins in different manners even to the point of making a public manifestation of repentance as is discussed in Canon Law when it refers to bringing the issue into the public forum. It seemed from your response earlier that you were advocating that all [mortal] sins were equal and all expiated through private confession - my question to you was in direct response to this error.

Are you a Canon Lawyer? A degreed Theologian?

 

[mosher]

Are you a Canon Lawyer? A degreed Theologian?

My Catholic education is formally in philosophy and theology with a particular focus on Thomistic Theology. I am in no way an expert of canon law but I have competence in aspects of canon law. I also have competence in questions on ethics, bio-ethics, various schools of philosophy and Catholic Theology. Also classical languages.

I also have significant secular education in history and political science and various modern languages.

This is the short list and I only provide this much because you asked. I don’t like to share too much personal information online.

In effect I am qualifid to teach either philosophy or theology.

 

[gmarie21]

My Catholic education is formally in philosophy and theology with a particular focus on Thomistic Theology. I am in no way an expert of canon law but I have competence in aspects of canon law. I also have competence in questions on ethics, bio-ethics, various schools of philosophy and Catholic Theology. Also classical languages.

I also have significant secular education in history and political science and various modern languages.

This is the short list and I only provide this much because you asked. I don’t like to share too much personal information online.

In effect I am qualifid to teach either philosophy or theology.

You have questioned my statements about the topic at hand, yet I have stated that I specifically spoke with and was counseled by a Canon Lawyer and Theologian (who happens to be an extremely orthodox priest). I am aware that I am not a Theologian, which is why, at the time of my pregnancy, I consulted those in the Church with WAAAAY more knowledge and education on this topic in which you have disagreed. Please be careful not to fall victim to the mindset of those in SSPX. I only advise you based on other comments you have made on other forums and your open disagreement of what the Church teaches on the matters that have been discussed in this forum.

 

[mosher]

You have questioned my statements about the topic at hand, yet I have stated that I specifically spoke with and was counseled by a Canon Lawyer and Theologian (who happens to be an extremely orthodox priest). I am aware that I am not a Theologian, which is why, at the time of my pregnancy, I consulted those in the Church with WAAAAY more knowledge and education on this topic in which you have disagreed. Please be careful not to fall victim to the mindset of those in SSPX. I only advise you based on other comments you have made on other forums and your open disagreement of what the Church teaches on the matters that have been discussed in this forum.

First of all I have never dissented from a single precept of what the Church teaches. Second in this specific topic I have said that I am open to a change in position if given a substantial argument to the contrary of my own. I would never claim to hold all of the knowledge of the Fathers and Doctors in my mind so I know well that I am very capable of fault. However, an emotional appeal is not an argument that can counter reason and to this point nearly all arguments to the contrary have been emotional appeals instead of reasoned arguments. Not a single post has tried to explain how such an even is not a scandal but rather it has only been stated that it is not a scandal. These, as I said, are not arguments but rather repetition of statements. I am sure that they are well meaning but it is very different to present a case based on objective criteria than subjective experience or emotional concern. This is a common problem in the US and most western nations. It seems that truth must give way to the feelings of others. Rather I contend that if we stop focusing on the feelings of others so much and just do what is objectively right then many of the evils of the world will in fact solve themselves. Such a disposition is no different than those who claim that a celibate priest can’t offer marriage advice because he hasn’t experienced marriage. This same logical reasoning is not only false but quite destructive.

 

[gmarie21]

First of all I have never dissented from a single precept of what the Church teaches. Second in this specific topic I have said that I am open to a change in position if given a substantial argument to the contrary of my own. I would never claim to hold all of the knowledge of the Fathers and Doctors in my mind so I know well that I am very capable of fault. However, an emotional appeal is not an argument that can counter reason and to this point nearly all arguments to the contrary have been emotional appeals instead of reasoned arguments. Not a single post has tried to explain how such an even is not a scandal but rather it has only been stated that it is not a scandal. These, as I said, are not arguments but rather repetition of statements. I am sure that they are well meaning but it is very different to present a case based on objective criteria than subjective experience or emotional concern. This is a common problem in the US and most western nations. It seems that truth must give way to the feelings of others. Rather I contend that if we stop focusing on the feelings of others so much and just do what is objectively right then many of the evils of the world will in fact solve themselves. Such a disposition is no different than those who claim that a celibate priest can’t offer marriage advice because he hasn’t experienced marriage. This same logical reasoning is not only false but quite destructive.

To be legalistic about this, one causes scandal when one attends mass pregnant and unwed. However, if one chooses to not cause scandal in given situation, one commits a bigger sin. So, to avoid scandal one may be doing more damage than if the same one did not sin and therefore caused scandal.

 

[mosher]

To be legalistic about this, one causes scandal when one attends mass pregnant and unwed. However, if one chooses to not cause scandal in given situation, one commits a bigger sin. So, to avoid scandal one may be doing more damage than if the same one did not sin and therefore caused scandal.

That is a very good point. Now, help me with understanding how this relates to topic at hand. Perhaps this is what I am not seeing.

 

[Kendy]

First of all I have never dissented from a single precept of what the Church teaches. Second in this specific topic I have said that I am open to a change in position if given a substantial argument to the contrary of my own. I would never claim to hold all of the knowledge of the Fathers and Doctors in my mind so I know well that I am very capable of fault. However, an emotional appeal is not an argument that can counter reason and to this point nearly all arguments to the contrary have been emotional appeals instead of reasoned arguments. Not a single post has tried to explain how such an even is not a scandal but rather it has only been stated that it is not a scandal. These, as I said, are not arguments but rather repetition of statements. I am sure that they are well meaning but it is very different to present a case based on objective criteria than subjective experience or emotional concern. This is a common problem in the US and most western nations. It seems that truth must give way to the feelings of others. Rather I contend that if we stop focusing on the feelings of others so much and just do what is objectively right then many of the evils of the world will in fact solve themselves. Such a disposition is no different than those who claim that a celibate priest can’t offer marriage advice because he hasn’t experienced marriage. This same logical reasoning is not only false but quite destructive.

Frankly, I can’t explain why it’s not a scandal because I just don’t see how it is. Can you please define for me what is a scandal? Let’s start really with something really basic.

 

[Kendy]

It seems that truth must give way to the feelings of others. Rather I contend that if we stop focusing on the feelings of others so much and just do what is objectively right then many of the evils of the world will in fact solve themselves.

No one will care how much you know until they know how much you care, especially about their feelings .

Kendy

 

[jmcrae]

Frankly, I can’t explain why it’s not a scandal because I just don’t see how it is. Can you please define for me what is a scandal? Let’s start really with something really basic.

A scandal is when you make something bad look to be okay. One example of a scandal would be a man and a woman living together who intend to get married, receiving Holy Communion at Mass.

Some people may be thinking that a baby shower would make it appear that the girl who got pregnant out of wedlock didn’t really do anything wrong.

Another kind of scandal might be to make something that is not a sin appear to be a sin, and another point of view may be that boycotting a baby shower would send the wrong message that being pregnant outside of marriage is a sin, when in fact, being pregnant outside of marriage is not a sin - it is sex outside of marriage that is a sin - regardless of whether a pregnancy occurs, or not.

 

[jmcrae]

No one will care how much you know until they know how much you care, especially about their feelings .

That is exactly right. There are very, very few people who have converted to anything who were not first made to feel like they were being heard, respected, and welcomed. Not many people are converted to anything by cold hard facts - facts help, but most people don’t even look at them until after they have been made to feel that their point of view is respected.

 

[mosher]

No one will care how much you know until they know how much you care, especially about their feelings .

Absolutely and that is why when things are done they are done with love. However, prior to that a discussion on what is right and what is wrong must be had. Once we determine what is right then we can talk about how to communicate it. But, we can’t start with the caring before we have the knowing. That would be putting the cart before the horse. Knowing precedes loving.

Frankly, I can’t explain why it’s not a scandal because I just don’t see how it is. Can you please define for me what is a scandal? Let’s start really with something really basic.

For the definition of scandal we can look to the Catholic Encyclopedia’s entry on the topic found here.

I will highlight a few of the points here:
Catholic Encyclopedia:

According to St. Thomas (II-II, Q. liii, a. 1) scandal is a word or action evil in itself, which occasions another’s spiritual ruin. It is a word or action, that is either an external act—for an internal act can have no influence on the conduct of another—or the omission of an external act, because to omit what one should do is equivalent to doing what is forbidden; it must be evil in itself, or in appearance

Catholic Encyclopedia:

For scandal to exist it is therefore essential and sufficient, with regard to the nature of the act and the circumstances under which it takes place, that it be of a nature to induce sin in another; consequently it is not necessary that the neighbour should actually fall into sin; and on the other hand, for scandal strictly so-called, it is not enough that a neighbour take occasion to do evil from a word or action which is not a subject of scandal and exercises no influence on his action; it must be a cause of spiritual ruin, that is of sin, consequently that is not scandal which merely dissuades the neighbour from a more perfect act, as for instance, prayer, the practice of the Evangelical virtues, the more frequent use of the sacraments, etc.

Catholic Encyclopedia:

Still less can that be considered scandal, which only arouses comment, indignation, horror etc., for instance blasphemy committed in the presence of a priest or of a religious; it is true that the act arouses indignation and in common parlance it is often called scandalous, but this way of speaking is inaccurate, and in strictly theological terminology it is not the sin of scandal. Hence scandal is in itself an evil act, at least in appearance, and as such it exercises on the will of another an influence more or less great which induces to sin.

Catholic Encyclopedia:

Passive scandal is called scandal given (scandalum datum), when the act of the scandalizer is of a nature to occasion it; and scandal received (acceptum), when the action of the one who scandalizes is due solely to ignorance or weakness—this is scandal of the weak (infirmorum)

Catholic Encyclopedia:

On the other hand scandal is only indirect when without the intention to cause another to fall into sin we say a word or perform a deed which is for him an occasion of sin

Catholic Encyclopedia:

He is guilty of the sin of scandal who without positively pledging or inducing to sin nevertheless performs an act evil in itself which will be an occasion of sin to another. The same must be said when the act is evil only in appearance, unless there be sufficient reason to act and to permit the fault of another

Catholic Encyclopedia:

To prevent another’s sin one may even be bound to forego an act which is sinful neither in itself nor in appearance, but which is nevertheless the occasion of sin to another, unless there be sufficient reason to act otherwise

Catholic Encyclopedia:

We should, to avoid scandal, forego good or indifferent works which are not of precept, if we can do so without great inconvenience.

The treatment of scandal is good but I encourage a read of the whole entry because there are some nuances that upon my quick gloss I found may cause me to be in error provided certain conditions.

 

[JezuUfamTobie]

I like that article. I’d like to add that paragraphs 2284-2287 of the Catechism also cover scandal. I’ll provide those for now and I’ll be back later to post again.

II. RESPECT FOR THE DIGNITY OF PERSONS

Respect for the souls of others: scandal

2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.

2285 Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.” Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep’s clothing.

2286 Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion.

Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to “social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible.” This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger, or manipulators of public opinion who turn it away from moral values.

2287 Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. “Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!”

 

[Kendy]

A scandal is when you make something bad look to be okay. One example of a scandal would be a man and a woman living together who intend to get married, receiving Holy Communion at Mass.

Some people may be thinking that a baby shower would make it appear that the girl who got pregnant out of wedlock didn’t really do anything wrong.

Another kind of scandal might be to make something that is not a sin appear to be a sin, and another point of view may be that boycotting a baby shower would send the wrong message that being pregnant outside of marriage is a sin, when in fact, being pregnant outside of marriage is not a sin - it is sex outside of marriage that is a sin - regardless of whether a pregnancy occurs, or not.

1. So, if the intent is to avoid having people believe that something that is a sin is not, what if you know that I think premarital sex to be a sin? Would this not avoid the problem that we are afraid of?
2. Let’s someone were to believe that my attendance to such an event was evidence of my approval. How would this damage the faith of the “scandalized” person?

Kendy

 

[Kendy]

Absolutely and that is why when things are done they are done with love. However, prior to that a discussion on what is right and what is wrong must be had. Once we determine what is right then we can talk about how to communicate it. But, we can’t start with the caring before we have the knowing. That would be putting the cart before the horse. Knowing precedes loving.

I can assure you that no one will feel loved by someone who boycotted their baby shower.

As for your being scandalized, you seriously want me to believe that you would fall into “spiritual ruin” because somreone attends the baby shower of a pregnant teen. I don’t buy it.

Kendy

 

[jmcrae]

1. So, if the intent is to avoid having people believe that something that is a sin is not, what if you know that I think premarital sex to be a sin? Would this not avoid the problem that we are afraid of?

I’m with you - anyone who knows you went to the baby shower would most likely know your opinion of premarital sex.

1. Let’s someone were to believe that my attendance to such an event was evidence of my approval. How would this damage the faith of the “scandalized” person?

If it were a case of attending a public event, with your picture in the paper, with only the information that you are a member of the Catholic Church, someone who doesn’t know you might think, “Oh - Catholics no longer believe that premarital sex is a sin. That must mean that people who consider themselves enlightened and spiritual are okay to go ahead and do that,” and, based on that information, take the step of engaging in premarital sex, which they might not otherwise have chosen to do.

However, I’m with you that this is a very unlikely scenario.

Even if the parents were of the sort who are accustomed to having their social events recorded in the social pages, this would be one event that would be “invitation only,” and no press allowed, to protect the privacy of their daughter.