Children born of adultery

[petrel]

There is no such thing as “generational sin”. You’ve just used a phrase that was drummed up by a protestant minster some time in the mid-1900’s.

What’s original sin then? Did the protestant minister come up with that in the mid-1900’s too? Besides you have completely ignored the scripture I quoted, as if I had not even quoted it. Incredible. Here it is again
Ex 34:7"(The Lord) will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the third and to the fourth generation."

As to St. Aquinas. Nothing you’ve quoted supports your position on how one ought to treat childen born of an illicit relationship between adults. Please do not attempt to use Aquinas to advance your ideology that is quite foriegn to traditional Catholic thought on the dignity of the human person.

More amazements. Aquinas directly supports my position. I have every right to support my argument with quotes from Doctors of the church. Please provide your Doctor of the church which argues that children born out of wedlock are not to be regarded as illegitimate.

If you’d like to ask a well known Thomist about St. Aquinas’s position on this topic, rather then imputing your own meaning on Aquinas’s words and using that to support your assertions, you can PM me and I will provide his name and email to you. He is very responsive.

I’m sure he’d address this generational sin topic with you as well.

No thanks. I am not interpreting or twisting Thomas’s words. I merely directly quoted them. They are quite plain and no Thomist worth his salt will deny the very direct and plain words which St. Thomas used. I will repeat them for you to show you how plain and unequivocal they are.

And if the Bible is not acceptable then we have Summa Theologica
newadvent.org/summa/5068.htm
In answer to the question
“Article 1. Whether children born out of true marriage are illegitimate?”
St. Thomas answers "Children are of four conditions. Some are natural and legitimate, for instance those who are born of a true and lawful marriage; some are natural and illegitimate, as those who are born of fornication; some are legitimate and not natural, as adopted children;** some are neither legitimate nor natural; such are those born of adultery **or incest, for these are born not only against the positive law, but against the express natural law. Hence we must grant that some children are illegitimate.

 

[petrel]

If good and decent people do not sin, then who among us is “good and decent”? Please, we’ve all read the story of the woman caught in adultery, haven’t we? It was her sin alone that was condemned by the Lord.

Abba Theodore said, 'If you are temperate, do not judge the fornicator, for you would then transgress the law just as much; He who said, “Do not commit fornication,” also said, “Do not judge.” (Sayings of the Desert Fathers)

It’s incredible that amongst Catholics the story of the woman forgiven for adultery is universally known. What a pity that other scriptures are not also so well known.
For example:
“1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,”
or
“Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.”

or the words that Jesus himself delivered to the church in Thyatira

"Rev 2:20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. 21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. 22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. 23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works. "

So here is a prime example of how the children are terribly affected by the sin’s of their parents.

 

[petrel]

Abba Theodore said, 'If you are temperate, do not judge the fornicator, for you would then transgress the law just as much; He who said, “Do not commit fornication,” also said, “Do not judge.” (Sayings of the Desert Fathers)

If a desert Father said this then he is an incorrect desert father. I have already provided a scripture to prove that the church is expected to judge fornication and expel it from our midst so that the leaven does not leaven the whole lump.

Please provide evidence that Abba Theodore said this. I could only find him saying
" He who said, “Do not commit fornication,” also said, “Do not kill.”

His point about not judging was in reference to someone who had committed fornication has no right to judge someone else who has committed fornication.
This is common sense and an obvious moral necessity, words like which our Lord himself spoke. It is clear that if the church loses its moral rectitude then it will not be able to judge wickedness in her midst. This is what we see more and more in these latter days.

Book about Abba
Book about Abba

 

[ajaffres]

If a desert Father said this then he is an incorrect desert father. I have already provided a scripture to prove that the church is expected to judge fornication and expel it from our midst so that the leaven does not leaven the whole lump.

Please provide evidence that Abba Theodore said this. I could only find him saying
" He who said, “Do not commit fornication,” also said, “Do not kill.”

His point about not judging was in reference to someone who had committed fornication has no right to judge someone else who has committed fornication.
This is common sense and an obvious moral necessity, words like which our Lord himself spoke. It is clear that if the church loses its moral rectitude then it will not be able to judge wickedness in her midst. This is what we see more and more in these latter days.

Book about Abba
Book about Abba

Aside from quotes from scriptures, don’t we all agree that Jesus died so that our sins will be forgiven. No matter what transgression we commit, isn’t about repentance and making amends before God?

 

[petrel]

Aside from quotes from scriptures, don’t we all agree that Jesus died so that our sins will be forgiven. No matter what transgression we commit, isn’t about repentance and making amends before God?

Is it awful to quote scripture? Don’t we all believe the scripture?
God is not mocked, nor is he a respecter of persons. He will not acquit the wicked.

Nor is there any contradiction in the scripture between God’s forgiveness of sin and his judgement’s against sin. The fact that God forgives sin is not to say that he condones it.

 

[ajaffres]

Is it awful to quote scripture? Don’t we all believe the scripture?
God is not mocked, nor is he a respecter of persons. He will not acquit the wicked.

Nor is there any contradiction in the scripture between God’s forgiveness of sin and his judgement’s against sin. The fact that God forgives sin is not to say that he condones it.

I did not say that it was wrong to quote scriptures. It is very important as Christians to educate each other on what pleases God and what doesn’t. Our goal however is to do so to bring people closer to God, to make them understand God’s love and forgiveness for those who seek it.

Our priest just last week spoke in his homily after reading Mark 1: 12-15. One of things he pointed out was what will we have to show for when we stand before God in the after life? When we show up at the gates, will God ask us: How righteous we were in our life? or will he ask: Who did you bring with you?

 

[petrel]

I did not say that it was wrong to quote scriptures. It is very important as Christians to educate each other on what pleases God and what doesn’t. Our goal however is to do so to bring people closer to God, to make them understand God’s love and forgiveness for those who seek it.

Our priest just last week spoke in his homily after reading Mark 1: 12-15. One of things he pointed out was what will we have to show for when we stand before God in the after life? When we show up at the gates, will God ask us: How righteous we were in our life? or will he ask: Who did you bring with you?

Blimey. Where do you get this stuff? Did you really get this from a priest? Mind you nothing surprises me in these end times.
Still seeing you ask the question I will give you the answer and it will not be my jingoistic idea but a straight citation of scripture.
Ready?

Revelation 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. 13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell [1] delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. 14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Roman 2:5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; 6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds: 7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: 8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, 9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; [1] 10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: [2] 11 For there is no respect of persons with God. 12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

The Jew first and also the Gentile. God is not a respecter of persons. In modern terms we could translate this as “The Catholic first and also the unbeliever”. So smug we are thinking that the sacraments will cover every wretched sin. How presumptuous we are, as if to imagine that God turns aside his eyes and does not see our evil deeds.

Did not King David cry out in anguish. “Lord take not your spirit from me” after he had committed adultery with Bathsheba. God heard his cry of anguish and the depth of his sorrow. But what if he had not cried out in anguish and repentance? Would the Lord have taken away his Spirit from David? Today Catholics sin as freely and often as those outside the church. Holiness is just a byword. When horrendous sins like adultery are committed then tolerance, mercy, love, forgiveness are espoused whether or not the sinner has expressed deep repentance. Nor is the sinner expected to perform anything but the most ridiculously light penances. He goes on with his/her life as if nothing has happened and the whole world is expected to work around the chaos which is unleashed by his/her actions. How many cry out in bitter anguish with fasting’s and tears supplicating the Lord not to take his spirit from them? It would not even occur to them that it was even necessary.

In the case of David his child did not have to worry about the “injustices” of social stigma, because GOD ** killed** the child to punish David for his utterly horrendous sin. You think I am wrong?
“2 Sam 12:14 Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.”

Adultery is not just a destruction and rending of a family, it brings discredit, shame upon the whole body of Christ, and an occasion to the enemies of the church to attack us.

 

[EasterJoy]

If a desert Father said this then he is an incorrect desert father. I have already provided a scripture to prove that the church is expected to judge fornication and expel it from our midst so that the leaven does not leaven the whole lump.

Please provide evidence that Abba Theodore said this. I could only find him saying
" He who said, “Do not commit fornication,” also said, “Do not kill.”

His point about not judging was in reference to someone who had committed fornication has no right to judge someone else who has committed fornication.
This is common sense and an obvious moral necessity, words like which our Lord himself spoke. It is clear that if the church loses its moral rectitude then it will not be able to judge wickedness in her midst. This is what we see more and more in these latter days.

Book about Abba
Book about Abba

I did not say anything about not judging fornication. I quoted a desert father who was cautioning not to judge the fornicator. Those are two very different things.

Is it awful to quote scripture? Don’t we all believe the scripture?
God is not mocked, nor is he a respecter of persons. He will not acquit the wicked.

Nor is there any contradiction in the scripture between God’s forgiveness of sin and his judgement’s against sin. The fact that God forgives sin is not to say that he condones it.

Whoa. Friend, we had all better hope to high heaven that the Blood of Jesus will acquit the wicked, because if that doesn’t cover us, we are toast. The devil can quote Scripture to suit his purpose, after all.

How many places in the red letters does it have to say that we are forbidden to judge others? And why? Because not only are we not God, but because we don’t even deserve to come before God and make it out that we’re good. We have no righteousness, save the righteousness that we avail ourselves of from the grace and mercy of God.

*While he was at table in his house, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat with Jesus and his disciples. The Pharisees saw this and said to his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” He heard this and said, “Those who are well do not need a physician, but the sick do. Go and learn the meaning of the words, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ I did not come to call the righteous but sinners.” *Matt. 9:10-12

Yes, we have to correct each other about what is right and wrong. Yes, there are times when this will even mean putting distance between ourselves as a possible cure to the obstinate. But no, we may not judge. There but for the grace of God, friend…there but for the grace of God. We are sinners, too, and we, too, deserve judgement.

 

[EasterJoy]

It’s incredible that amongst Catholics the story of the woman forgiven for adultery is universally known. What a pity that other scriptures are not also so well known.
For example:
“1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,”
or
“Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.”

or the words that Jesus himself delivered to the church in Thyatira

"Rev 2:20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. 21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. 22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. 23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works. "

So here is a prime example of how the children are terribly affected by the sin’s of their parents.

You do realize that all of those passages are aimed at the actual people tempted to sin, and were not given to believers as weapons with which to hit other people over the head, right?

 

[Imryl]

What’s original sin then? Did the protestant minister come up with that in the mid-1900’s too? Besides you have completely ignored the scripture I quoted, as if I had not even quoted it. Incredible. Here it is again
Ex 34:7"(The Lord) will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the third and to the fourth generation."

If you do not have a clear understanding of how original sin is traditionally thought as being propagated through humanity and how that is different from the above quoted verse then I’m afraid you’re much further off base then I originally assumed. In addition, you have a very very shallow understanding of that verse. You should consider, first, that everything that happens occurs because God permits it (i.e. God’s permissive will). This includes natural, moral and spiritual evils. This does not mean he [God] visits punishment on the individual actively or directly.

For instance, if someone is the result of an adulterous relationship, they may live without a father who would have provided him/her with the support needed to overcome the temptation to use drugs. In that fathers absence however, the child succumbed.

More amazements. Aquinas directly supports my position. I have every right to support my argument with quotes from Doctors of the church. Please provide your Doctor of the church which argues that children born out of wedlock are not to be regarded as illegitimate.

There is a huge difference between how a legal system can distinguish between licit and illicit relationships and the legal standing of the offspring in a morally acceptable manner, and how one should treat another human person, my friend.

Please view the following video. This video does not specifically address the current topic but there are parts that are relevant. Pay particular attention to the three examples this particular expert of Thomisim gives starting at about 7minutes and 30 seconds. The example provided addresses adultery specifically and how Thomas Aquinas responded to a question asked of him.

Video.

My offer stands if you’d like to talk this over with someone who’s very knowledgeable on this subject.

In the meantime I’ll renew my objection to your using Thomas Aquinas in attempt to give your assertion validity. Thomas Aquinas was not only known for his superior intellect, but also his immense mercy.

G’luck to you in your search.

 

[petrel]

G’luck to you in your search.

Please don’t patronise me. I am not searching, I am telling you how it is.
I am correct and you are flat out wrong.
I quoted plain words from Aquinas. You are putting on your lawyers hat to weezle your way out of what he clearly and unmistakeably said; that children of adulterous relationships are illegitimate.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Please don’t patronise me. I am not searching, I am telling you how it is.
I am correct and you are flat out wrong.
I quoted plain words from Aquinas. You are putting on your lawyers hat to weezle your way out of what he clearly and unmistakeably said; that children of adulterous relationships are illegitimate.

Yes, children born from adultery are called illegitimate. No one is arguing that. What they are arguing against is your assertion that those children should be shamed and treated as lessor people.

 

[Ailina]

Good and decent people do not live in sin. That is a contradiction of terms.
In the book of Acts the apostle said that in times gone by God might have winked at these indiscretions during the times of ignorance. But now since Christ he commands all men everywhere to repent. Acts 17 This society has turned its back on knowledge and run after fornication. How will such a society not be judged? God is not mocked.

And worse. Our own Catholic sons and daughters are rushing to fornicate at an astonishing rate, so much so that we as parents are excusing them because we love them. This is false love though. We should being raging with anger against them and reminding them of the fires of hell instead of all this coochy coo that is going on. How shall they know the fear of God and his judgements if we do not instill it in them and teach them?

As Christ said “What good is salt if it has lost its savour?” Our young people, by and large, are no different to their peers in society. In fact our adults are no different to their peers in society. Adultery amongst Catholics is basically no different to the wider community. Isn’t the church supposed to be holy?

What an empty boast we have when we proudly proclaim one, holy, apostolic, catholic church. Well holy we are no longer. Not in this land anyway. And the Lord will judge his people. Judgement begins at the house of God.

“We need not talk about those outside”. Incredible that is the whole mission of the church. Go in to all the world and preach the gospel

Incredible that the church has fallen so far that it can no longer evangelise to the sinners preaching repentance. What a hollow message that is when we ourselves are not responding to the Holy Spirit and bringing forth fruits of purity and repentance.

We are supposed to be a light to the world, but now we struggle to light our own halls.

I am not having a go at you, I am just lamenting the sad state of affairs in the society but moreso the church which should know so much better.

Part of this apathy is the tolerance and acceptance we extend to brothers and sisters in the church who claim to be Christian and yet commit grave sins. The apostle commands us to not associate with such people. In the early church a Christian would be prevented from receiving the sacraments for years and have to face a lengthy period of very public penance after having committed such a horrendous sin as adultery. And yet now we have adulterers receiving the sacrament in a state of mortal sin committing grevious sacriledge.

And the innocent spouse of the adulterer is told to be loving and merciful and accept this unholy individual back into their bed and to bring all their illegitimate children with them back into the house.

Such horrendous scandal wrought upon the household of God. But I hear the cries of outrage. The adulterer must be forgiven, the consequences of his sin must be ameliorated. This just shows how far gone we are. Accepting of outrageous sins like fornication, birth control and adultery as if they are a norm that God will turn a blind eye to when we should be lamenting at the destruction of Jerusalem. Because if the church does not judge itself then we will fall into the hands of the living God who will certainly judge us.

Therefore we must expel the immoral brother and not associate with him.
Here is the Word of the Lord
"1 Cor 5:9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: "

“Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?”

“deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus”

"I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. "

“Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.”

Hmmmm…there has been many a saint who started out as fornicators. St. Augustine is one of many in that group.

 

[Catholic90]

Yes, children born from adultery are called illegitimate. No one is arguing that. What they are arguing against is your assertion that those children should be shamed and treated as lessor people.

:clapping:

 

[EasterJoy]

Yes, children born from adultery are called illegitimate. No one is arguing that. What they are arguing against is your assertion that those children should be shamed and treated as lessor people.

Exactly. The terms are legal terms, and reflect only what legal status a person enjoys due to the legitimacy of the relationship between his or her parents that lead to his or her conception. The terms do not reflect whether or not a person is a more or less authentic or genuine example of the human race.

 

[petrel]

Exactly. The terms are legal terms, and reflect only what legal status a person enjoys due to the legitimacy of the relationship between his or her parents that lead to his or her conception. The terms do not reflect whether or not a person is a more or less authentic or genuine example of the human race.

What do you mean “more or less”? They are absolutely authentic and genuine examples of the human race. Where did I say any differently? Please do not put words into my mouth.
All I am doing is resisting the ridiculous assertion made earlier in the post that children of adulterers are not illegitimate.
Now that I have pointed out how ludicrous that is, now you are all saying well yes they are illegitimate but only in legal terms.

 

[petrel]

I was objecting to the previous post which took to extremes what I am saying and basically accused me of not even regarding illegitimate people as being human.
They have dignity as members of the human race, which is equal to all men, and they are full and genuine examples of the human race as made in the image of God. But as members of society they have less dignity. Otherwise, what do we even have the word dignity for?
Dignity means “. The quality or state of being worthy of esteem or respect.”
An adulterer is not worthy of esteem or respect. His children are also victims of their parents state and the social shame and stigma passes to them. However an illegitimate child can, through a life of exemplary righteousness leave behind his ignoble heritage, marry, have legitimate children and leave his children a better heritage than they themselves received. Sadly however the cards are stacked against them and it is more likely than otherwise that they will repeat the sins of their parents.

This is why good society must bear considerable pressure upon its people to maintain a high standard of ethics and morals, not just in business dealings but in our marriages as well. We are not all islands. We all live in a community and a society. It is in all our best interests to be our brothers keeper and protect the next generation. To teach the younger generation that adultery and children out of wedlock is absolutely NOT socially acceptable is our responsibility as loving parents and elders. How else are we to do this if we do not show our severe displeasure at unnatural acts like adultery. I use the word “unnatural” in the sense that Aquinas used it, but today we regard adultery as a normal sexual act.

It is highly unnatural, disordered and made all the more obviously so when children appear.

 

[chevalier]

They have dignity as members of the human race, which is equal to all men, and they are full and genuine examples of the human race as made in the image of God. But as members of society they have less dignity.

An illegitimate child does not have less dignity than you, whether as a person or as a citizen, and this is the correct state of things.

Dignity means “. The quality or state of being worthy of esteem or respect.”

An illegitimate child is not less worthy of esteem or respect than you are. Unless by your personal merit.

His children are also victims of their parents state and the social shame and stigma passes to them.

Victims of the stigma which you propose imposing. You can’t argue for its imposition on the one hand and defend it as a fact of life on the other hand. It’s either or.

This is why good society must bear considerable pressure upon its people to maintain a high standard of ethics and morals, not just in business dealings but in our marriages as well. We are not all islands. We all live in a community and a society. It is in all our best interests to be our brothers keeper and protect the next generation.

As a criminal law scholar (en route to Ph.D.), I can tell you that one of the fundamental aspects of more or less sound moral fabric is appropriate allocation of blame. You propose allocating part of the blame for adultery, fornication etc. on children. What next? Blame children for theft, homicide, embezzlement…?

To teach the younger generation that adultery and children out of wedlock is absolutely NOT socially acceptable is our responsibility as loving parents and elders.

Having children out of wedlock is not any more unacceptable than fornication is. What is unacceptable is fornication and contraception. It is up to debate if fornication plus contraception (successful conception prevention) is not actually worse than fornication with children resulting. People who rant about “illegitimacy” and there being children out of wedlock step dangerously close to suggesting that those children had better been prevented if the parents were going to have sex anyway.

An exception would be trying to have a child out of wedlock on purpose (by design) by someone who should know (or act better). E.g. somebody wanting to have an heir despite a childless spouse.

It is highly unnatural, disordered and made all the more obviously so when children appear.

Nonetheless, those children have a right to live and despite the circumstances of their conception they need not be sorry that they live.

Heh, back in the time racists made “rational” arguments too.

 

[petrel]

Exactly. The terms are legal terms, and reflect only what legal status a person enjoys due to the legitimacy of the relationship between his or her parents that lead to his or her conception. The terms do not reflect whether or not a person is a more or less authentic or genuine example of the human race.

It is true that the word “illegitimate” is a legal word and comes from the root of the word legal. When used to describe a child born out of wedlock then there are legal ramifications in that in the past the illegitimate child did not have the same legal rights as a legitimate child. But in the case of children born out of wedlock the word “Illegitimate” is a direct reference to their state within the context of society.
Here is the dictionary definition
il·le·git·i·mate/ˌiləˈjitəmit/
1.Not authorized by the law; not in accordance with accepted standards or rules: “an illegitimate exercise of power by the military”.
2.(of a child) Born of parents not lawfully married to each other.

So I am just advocating a basic use of a word out of the dictionary and am getting howled down about it. Why? because we have a social stigma against those who advocate social stigma’s. We have an absurdly politically correct society with a large proportion being Catholic.

The absence of social stigma towards illegitimate children is a relatively new phenomen developing as late as the 1960’s. In all previous generations it was the norm. And are our marriages and societies better for it. I think not?

Wikipedia has a fantastic article on this subject
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(law

Notice this comment from wikipedia. "A contribution to the decline of the concept of illegitimacy had been made by increased ease of obtaining divorce. Prior to this, the mother and father of many a child had been unable to marry each other because one or the other was already legally bound, by civil or canon law, in a non-viable earlier marriage that did not admit of divorce. "

So the concept of opposing illegitimacy through laws of the land and social stigma’ goes hand in hand with opposing divorce. It also is the flip side of the coin to encouraging legitimate children and monogomous marriage.

 

[chevalier]

The absence of social stigma towards illegitimate children is a relatively new phenomen developing as late as the 1960’s. In all previous generations it was the norm. And are our marriages and societies better for it. I think not?

You are directly, clearly suggesting stigmatising the children (doing evil in harming an innocent) in order to help out society (do good). That’s immoral.