"illicit pregnancy" comments

[momof8]

I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to sound prejudiced. Maybe I am and don’t know it. Maybe I’m not, and can clarify. What I meant to say is that when you see a statistic about certain groups of people, you have to wonder why that stat occurs. The mathematics of statistics teach us that when there is a large enough discrepancy in numbers, it likely has a reason, and isn’t random. In the case of the statistic (which I haven’t personally heard, but for the case of this discussion I will assume is true) that says that children of divorce have higher rates of out of wedlock babies, you have to ask why. In fact, we really should ask why, so that we can address whatever is going on. So in considering why there are significantly more out of wedlock births from children of divorce, you could probably come to a few conclusions. One of which would be that statistically speaking, there is more premarital sex with these folks than children who are raised by parents who did not divorce. Well, the poster I was responding to, and agreeing with, thinks that is probably not the case, seeing as pre-marital sex is pretty much rampant in all circles (not counting a few orthodox religious communities). Another possible reason is that perhaps that in this group of people, there are more whose only experience of marriage is negative, and therefore, they are more vulnerable to the societal pressure to undermine the importance of marriage. I don’t mean to say that growing up a child of divorce = not valuing marriage. Rather, statistically speaking, it is possible that there are a greater number of “children of divorce” who see marriage as a negative, than the number of children from intact marriages. And that perhaps statistically speaking, more of them are choosing to get pregnant, as opposed to it happening “completely unexpectedly.”

When I say “statistically speaking,” be assured that this only is a generalization. Statistics might be able to predict what percentage of a certain group will behave a certain way. But I wouldn’t take that statistic and impose it on any particular person. After all, even though the numbers may be higher, there are still plenty of children from divorced parents who DO wait til marriage to have children.

I have a good friend who is like you. Her parents were divorced, and she put up with a lot of %^&*( from her father. But she has a great head on her shoulders, and has ALWAYS been a faithful person, whether in friendship or otherwise. I haven’t asked her directly, but I strongly suspect that the issues she had to deal with as a child are a strong motivation for her (along with other motivations) to make sure that her marriage lasts. All the same, I’m sure there are others who decide that the way to avoid those pitfalls is not to get married at all, you know? Not to mention the others who weren’t able to avoid the cycle and end up repeating their parents mistakes (as so many of us do in all areas of life). Anyway, my point is that I’m just thinking about generalizations and statistics, not trying to say that this would be true of any particular person, or that it would be true of most.

Thank you so much to all the posters who have helped me think through why this bothers me so much.

Thy Kingdom Come, this is a very gracious response to a very understandable reaction to your first comment. The part of your response that I’ve put in bold expresses my point exactly. There must statistically be almost no difference between the rate of virginity at marriage among those whose parents are married and those whose parents are not. It is a sad commentary on our culture, and I want to be sure that there is no greater judgement attached to a woman who gets pregnant and another sexually active woman who does not. (I guess I am not mentioning the men involved because they are not bearing the brunt of this kind of judgement.)

Contra Mundum, I really appreciate you comment. I am divorced and I know it hurts my children that there is a perception that they should be considered damaged goods. Yes, they are “damaged” in the sense that they experienced and still experience heartbreak over the loss of their complete family, but my prayer is certainly that they react as you have done, to live their lives even more consciously of the value of family.

The bottom line is, we value chastity, and that is what we hope for, most especially so that the children being born have the best possible chance at happiness in life. But I still would like to see a distinction made not on the basis of pregnancy, but on the basis of living a chaste life, especially on a societal level.

 

[AngelRS]

I have often expressed my admiration for the young women who go ahead and have their babies when they discover they’re pregnant out of wedlock. It takes a lot of courage to “go public” with the fact that they’re not virgins anymore (and unfortunately many, MANY girls have sex before they get married). It would be worse to compound the sin by killing the blameless baby.

I attended a girls’ Catholic High School and there would be all sorts of comments when (rarely) a girl got pregnant but that didn’t mean that others weren’t having sex without visible consequences.

The stress should be on being pure, yes but if someone has fallen short then at least they shouldn’t have to take further pressure for doing the right thing and having the baby, whether they keep him/her or not.

 

[joandarc2008]

I truly believe that if we spent as much time protecting the sanctity of the wombs of the young women (I say women because men don’t have wombs ) as we do protecting the sanctity of the priesthood the world would be a better place.

 

[ThyKingdomCome]

I am divorced and I know it hurts my children that there is a perception that they should be considered damaged goods. Yes, they are “damaged” in the sense that they experienced and still experience heartbreak over the loss of their complete family, but my prayer is certainly that they react as you have done, to live their lives even more consciously of the value of family.

This is such a tough thing, because on the one hand, when there is damage, we should want to recognize the damage, so we can repair it. OTOH, people are not goods, and the damaged goods mentality doesn’t necessarily respect the dignity of the person, nor the ability to overcome challenges. On the other other hand , many of us are “damaged goods” in one way or another. I grew up in a very liberal household which did not teach me the best sexual morality (better than some, worse than others). I still suffer the spiritual effects of that, and were it not for the grace of God, my life would be a mess - talk about damaged goods. Someone else might be “damaged” because of something else bad that happened in their childhood. There are a few lucky ones out there whose childhoods didn’t burden them in that way. I hope and pray that my kids can be that blessed. And that whatever bad circumstances we saddle them with, their formation and God’s grace will help them respond with faith and move beyond the damage. It is a fine line between recognizing true disadvantages that exist in a community and pre-judging individual people and creating a false us/them dichotomy.

 

[jamanne]

Jamanne, there is a big difference between someone whose father died, and someone whose father deserted them.

Has it crossed anyone’s mind that disappointment in someone who gets pregnant before marriage could come from a high opinion of the couple - an assumption that they were both chaste?

And why are people asking why the men escape blame? This is a Catholic forum, folks; we don’t have a double standard about sex! We are all called to chastity. (Don’t confuse it with celibacy.)

Yes we are all called to chastity so why was my grand mother forced to wear a black wedding dress so everyone would know she was pregnant.?and why did the clergy allow it. ?It was this kind of horrific emotional abuse that drove women to abortion.I would love to see just one man go through childbirth with no support as many women had to do ,physically ,mentally ,financially,exhausted ,they bore the brunt for being naive or ignorant Yes many times the man took off and impregnated someone else A woman can only produce a child once in nine months a man can cause impregnation daily if he chooses no black gowns for him Who is more emotionally in need than a young pregnant woman ,easy to throw stones at ,and deflect the the focus from what the REALLY GOOD CHRISTiANS are doing.Before Abortion was so readily available many of the prolife marchers would have been first in line for the stoning the hypocrisy is sickening

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

This is such a tough thing, because on the one hand, when there is damage, we should want to recognize the damage, so we can repair it. OTOH, people are not goods, and the damaged goods mentality doesn’t necessarily respect the dignity of the person, nor the ability to overcome challenges. On the other other hand , many of us are “damaged goods” in one way or another. I grew up in a very liberal household which did not teach me the best sexual morality (better than some, worse than others). I still suffer the spiritual effects of that, and were it not for the grace of God, my life would be a mess - talk about damaged goods. Someone else might be “damaged” because of something else bad that happened in their childhood. There are a few lucky ones out there whose childhoods didn’t burden them in that way. I hope and pray that my kids can be that blessed. And that whatever bad circumstances we saddle them with, their formation and God’s grace will help them respond with faith and move beyond the damage. It is a fine line between recognizing true disadvantages that exist in a community and pre-judging individual people and creating a false us/them dichotomy.

I think this is a valid point. The thing we need to get out of this is that in our marriages, our families, our actions, our decisions as parents do have consequences, and our negative decisions can have negative effects on our children. I will say that in my group of friends in college, the ones that were not sexually active came from families that were practicing Catholics with married parents. That, and one Muslim girl . If you think about it, nowadays you have to make the firm choice not to have sex because premarital sex is so predominant out there. What would motivate you to choose this? Values? Is the divorce rate the same among couples where both members try to please God and couples who keep God out of the equation? I was brought up by a single mom (widow) and I know that if it weren’t for her, what she taught us, (and God obviously) I wouldn’t have made it to marriage a virgin either. My guess would be that a higher percentage of people who do not participate in premarital sex come from families with parents that have shared their strong values with their children, and my guess is that if both parents are committed to strong values, divorce rates might be lower. Therefore, there might be a relationship between intact marriages, marriages that place God in the center of their family etc and young people who do not participate in premarital sex. This does not mean that, for example, a mother who made the wrong decision in choosing a husband, or who was totally surprised by what her husband turned out to be like, will not be able to be a strong example of faith for her kids. I know one wonderful divorced woman (I don’t know the exact circumstances of her divorce, all I know was that he was an alcoholic etc) and her children are now grown up and shinning examples of faith. Her daughter has a strong marriage and a beautiful family of 10 children. Nevertheless, they still deal with some consequences of their father’s behavior.

 

[EasterJoy]

Yes we are all called to chastity so why was my grand mother forced to wear a black wedding dress so everyone would know she was pregnant.?and why did the clergy allow it. ?It was this kind of horrific emotional abuse that drove women to abortion.I would love to see just one man go through childbirth with no support as many women had to do ,physically ,mentally ,financially,exhausted ,they bore the brunt for being naive or ignorant Yes many times the man took off and impregnated someone else A woman can only produce a child once in nine months a man can cause impregnation daily if he chooses no black gowns for him Who is more emotionally in need than a young pregnant woman ,easy to throw stones at ,and deflect the the focus from what the REALLY GOOD CHRISTiANS are doing.Before Abortion was so readily available many of the prolife marchers would have been first in line for the stoning the hypocrisy is sickening

One of the best homilies I ever heard on the topic of abortion was an in-depth questioning pointed at those who had never been in a position to be tempted to have one:
What have you ever done to support a woman in that position?
Did you make it easier or harder for her to do the right thing?
Do you give the impression that we would welcome someone in that position here, in our parish?
Do you make it clear in even your casual comments on this topic that God wants to reconcile with those who have committed sin, and without holding their past over their heads, whether they got pregnant outside of marriage or even if they’ve taken part in procuring an abortion?
Do you make it clear that the important thing for all of us is to turn from whatever sin we are in right now, that we are here to help each other to do that, and without judging each other?
Are you part of this problem, or part of its solution?

It pleases me that a big part of the pro-life efforts in our area is Birthright, which gives emotional and physical support to women who choose life, even when they hazard the judgment of others in doing it. Local parish grade schools have “baby showers” every year to get donations of new baby clothes, diapers, and baby equipment for unwed mothers who don’t have them. I think that is fantastic.

 

[ac_claire]

Are you all so sure that it’s REALLY only disapproved of at the point of pregnancy? And not that parents and family simply don’t KNOW about the sexual activity unless/until a pregnancy happens, except in the rarest of circumstances?

Or (especially) that people outside the families involved are really not going to be told unless/until a pregnancy happens that makes it impossible to keep the sexual activity a secret?

Good point here. I think the disapproval (if we’re speaking generally, culturally) has to do with the lack of purity and chastity, not the baby or the pregnancy. There has to be a distinction made. Of course it’s not the baby’s fault. But when you have an unwed mother, then obviously there has been a lapse in chastity. And no, it’s not fair that men don’t have the same scarlet letter, so to speak.

But I don’t see “too much” disapproval for pre/extra-marital sex OR illegitimate pregnancies these days in any case. As the culture declines more and more into sin and secularism, more and more people start worrying about the harm in “judging”, or expressing disapproval, or the supposed horribleness of guilt and shame, etc. Shame is a prerequisite for true contrition for sin. We eliminate shame and we eliminate one of the main tools God has given us humans for conversion. Those are my thoughts on it anyhow.

Back to the OP…

I’m hoping someone can help me understand something that’s been puzzling me.

I guess I’ve seen some hypocrisy lately among conservative Catholic I know, who will present themselves as examples of purity, when the only reason they “get away” with that image is not that they are sexually pure, but that they have not gotten pregnant. Is there some virtue here that I am missing, because it does not seem terribly virtuous to me. Is the ultimate goal to prevent unwed pregnancy (an important goal, surely) or to be sexually pure?

Honestly I think you have a point. But the point isn’t so much anything about a widespread cultural hypocrisy as it is that your “conservative Catholic” friend is a hypocrite to the nth degree. Hypocrites always get what’s coming to them, God assures us of that. But I understand the frustration in the meantime.

 

[CradleCath]

ac claire;6873083]Good point here. I think the disapproval (if we’re speaking generally, culturally) has to do with the lack of purity and chastity, not the baby or the pregnancy. There has to be a distinction made. Of course it’s not the baby’s fault. But when you have an unwed mother, then obviously there has been a lapse in chastity. And no, it’s not fair that men don’t have the same scarlet letter, so to speak.

But I don’t see “too much” disapproval for pre/extra-marital sex OR illegitimate pregnancies these days in any case. As the culture declines more and more into sin and secularism, more and more people start worrying about the harm in “judging”, or expressing disapproval, or the supposed horribleness of guilt and shame, etc. Shame is a prerequisite for true contrition for sin. We eliminate shame and we eliminate one of the main tools God has given us humans for conversion. Those are my thoughts on it anyhow.

 

[CradleCath]

My point is, it seems to me that if the majority of people are not virgins on their wedding day, and the majority of the marrying couples’ parents are still married to each other (a 50 percent divorce rate does not mean that 50 percent of people who get married will get divorced, actually far from it) then what is the difference in regard to sexual activity, and why be NOT “disappointed” in the non-pregnant non-virgin? I guess I’ve seen some hypocrisy lately among conservative Catholic I know, who will present themselves as examples of purity, when the only reason they “get away” with that image is not that they are sexually pure, but that they have not gotten pregnant. Is there some virtue here that I am missing, because it does not seem terribly virtuous to me. Is the ultimate goal to prevent unwed pregnancy (an important goal, surely) or to be sexually pure?

Just a thought. “Sexually active over several years” girls DON’T get pregnant. I’ve always thought that those girls who do become pregnant are very likely more innocent. They probably didn’t plan on having sex & were unprepared.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

Healthy Catholic parents will be disappointed if they find out their “child” is having premarital sex. I guess an “illicit pregnancy” is just proof that premarital sex was there (unless a product of rape, but they usually aren’t). A practicing orthodox Catholic would be saddened by the premarital sex, pregnancy or no pregnancy. Maybe they are assuming that a group of people with more “sexually active” members with have more pregnancies than a group of people with less “sexually active” members. Like I mentioned in my previous post, a couple we know had her pill “fail” and got pregnant. My friends that were virgins never got pregnant .

 

[gmarie21]

When I was pregnant with dd (in extremely non-idealistic circumstances) many said things about me behind my back (mostly all Catholic). Well, it was very tempting to go up to them and say “the only difference between you and me is that I didn’t use contraception and thus ended up pregnant.” Granted, these are family members I know who didn’t “wait” until marriage.