marriage after pregnancy?

[coffeeandcigarette]

I don't think raising the child in a half-Catholic home is in the best interest of the child, ever. The "unbelieving wife" thing is all well and good, but how did that work out for Saint Monica?

St Monica's pagan husband, Patricius, did convert a year before his death.  So too his pagan mother.

Yes, a year before his death. What good did that do Augustine?? None. He was so badly influenced by his father and the pagan environment that it took him years and years to recover; most boys don't recover spiritually from situations like that.

[Chestertonian]

As long as he's not a drug addict/alcoholic, mentality unstable, abusive or a basement dweller, she should marry him.  She owes it to the child to give him a healthy home with a mom and a dad.  Stuff like drugs, abuse, severe mental illness can cancel out whatever benefit there would have been in having a father around.  But if he's a decent human being the smart thing would be to marry him even though he's not as handsome/wealthy/exciting as she'd like

[Graham]

I don't think raising the child in a half-Catholic home is in the best interest of the child, ever. The "unbelieving wife" thing is all well and good, but how did that work out for Saint Monica?

St Monica's pagan husband, Patricius, did convert a year before his death.  So too his pagan mother.

Yes, a year before his death. What good did that do Augustine?? None. He was so badly influenced by his father and the pagan environment that it took him years and years to recover; most boys don't recover spiritually from situations like that.

His father's influence was so bad that even he became a doctor of the Church!

[coffeeandcigarette]

I don't think raising the child in a half-Catholic home is in the best interest of the child, ever. The "unbelieving wife" thing is all well and good, but how did that work out for Saint Monica?

St Monica's pagan husband, Patricius, did convert a year before his death.  So too his pagan mother.

Yes, a year before his death. What good did that do Augustine?? None. He was so badly influenced by his father and the pagan environment that it took him years and years to recover; most boys don't recover spiritually from situations like that.

His father's influence was so bad that even he became a doctor of the Church!

Oh please, he became a doctor of the church because of his mother and his own defense of the faith/exploration of conversion. That would be like saying Saint Francis was a saint because of his father. Ludicrous. Everyone knows the story of Augustine is amazing/miraculous. That is why it resonates throughout history. For every Augustine, there are 10,000 boys who have been abandoned to drink, drugs, sex, porn, gambling, atheism, etc by bad paternal influence.

[Graham]

I don't think raising the child in a half-Catholic home is in the best interest of the child, ever. The "unbelieving wife" thing is all well and good, but how did that work out for Saint Monica?

St Monica's pagan husband, Patricius, did convert a year before his death.  So too his pagan mother.

Yes, a year before his death. What good did that do Augustine?? None. He was so badly influenced by his father and the pagan environment that it took him years and years to recover; most boys don't recover spiritually from situations like that.

His father's influence was so bad that even he became a doctor of the Church!

Oh please, he became a doctor of the church because of his mother and his own defense of the faith/exploration of conversion. That would be like saying Saint Francis was a saint because of his father. Ludicrous.

I didnt say it was because of his father. The point is you dont get to unilaterally decide what his father's influence was, and where it began and ended - ascribing effects to it when it suits your argument, and denying them when it doesnt, even implying counterfactual scenarios where St. Augustine would have ultimately been better off without a father around.

The situation described in the OP is one where two people are in a loving relationship for over a year, and considering marriage, yet you referred to him "some random guy" and for some reason keep bringing up women being abused, and now you're going off about how generally awful paternal influence is. Get your man hatred under control.

[Lydia Purpuraria]

Jayne, had they ever really considered or spoken of marriage with/to each other before the pregnancy occurred? 

I would suggest that they not rush into marriage, especially if she's still early along (like, first trimester). Don't rule marriage out by any means; but don't rush into it, either.  For one thing, she could miscarry the baby and if they've already married (only because she was pregnant) there could be greater issues down-the-line for the couple, particularly the practicing Catholic since marriage, in the Church's eyes, is for life! 

(Another question: is her only concern about marrying him the fact that he isn't a practicing Catholic at present?)

 

[Jayne]

Jayne, had they ever really considered or spoken of marriage with/to each other before the pregnancy occurred?   

(Another question: is her only concern about marrying him the fact that he isn't a practicing Catholic at present?)

Yes, they had seriously discussed marriage before she got pregnant.  The reason they did not do it is because of the religion issue.  That is the only concern that I know of.

[coffeeandcigarette]

I don't think raising the child in a half-Catholic home is in the best interest of the child, ever. The "unbelieving wife" thing is all well and good, but how did that work out for Saint Monica?

St Monica's pagan husband, Patricius, did convert a year before his death.  So too his pagan mother.

Yes, a year before his death. What good did that do Augustine?? None. He was so badly influenced by his father and the pagan environment that it took him years and years to recover; most boys don't recover spiritually from situations like that.

His father's influence was so bad that even he became a doctor of the Church!

Oh please, he became a doctor of the church because of his mother and his own defense of the faith/exploration of conversion. That would be like saying Saint Francis was a saint because of his father. Ludicrous.

I didnt say it was because of his father. The point is you dont get to unilaterally decide what his father's influence was, and where it began and ended - ascribing effects to it when it suits your argument, and denying them when it doesnt, even implying counterfactual scenarios where St. Augustine would have ultimately been better off without a father around.

The situation described in the OP is one where two people are in a loving relationship for over a year, and considering marriage, yet you referred to him "some random guy" and for some reason keep bringing up women being abused, and now you're going off about how generally awful paternal influence is. Get your man hatred under control.

Firstly, one can certainly ascribe bad influence on a bad character. St. Augustine himself attributes his conversion to his mother. If his father had been a good influence, I am sure Augustine would have given him some credit. Influence can be one sided. A bad man will give bad influence, not good. You can't say that everyone will give some of each, that is not realistic.

I am not bringing up women being abused randomly. People who enter into marriage with a power disparity in which they are on the losing end, often suffer these things. This is not man-hate. If it were biologically possible for the man to be in the same situation, I would advise the same way. If I was counseling the young man, I would tell him not to marry the girl either. The only sex-related thing here is the fact that the woman is the pregnant party and is therefor the one some people think need to be rescued/made honest/etc. Pretend you had a wealthy women and a really poor young man. I would never recommend that he marry her. The power disparity between them could be hard later on. Any notion that she had "rescued" him or that all their success was b/c of her and he was just along for the ride, etc, would be very bad. Why do you think priests council against even educational disparity. You see many say that a difference in education between a smart/well educated woman and a simple/basically educated guy is a very bad idea. These bits of advice protect the man; this is the farthest thing from a man-hating argument. These marriages can suffer from some of the same abuse that I mentioned before. I don't think any couple should get married (at least not without a lot of thought/prayer/council) where there is a big disparity in faith, power, etc. I just think it sets a couple up for failure in what is already going to be difficult in the best of circumstances. Marriage is never easy, why make it harder on yourself from day one?

[Graham]

I don't think raising the child in a half-Catholic home is in the best interest of the child, ever. The "unbelieving wife" thing is all well and good, but how did that work out for Saint Monica?

St Monica's pagan husband, Patricius, did convert a year before his death.  So too his pagan mother.

Yes, a year before his death. What good did that do Augustine?? None. He was so badly influenced by his father and the pagan environment that it took him years and years to recover; most boys don't recover spiritually from situations like that.

His father's influence was so bad that even he became a doctor of the Church!

Oh please, he became a doctor of the church because of his mother and his own defense of the faith/exploration of conversion. That would be like saying Saint Francis was a saint because of his father. Ludicrous.

I didnt say it was because of his father. The point is you dont get to unilaterally decide what his father's influence was, and where it began and ended - ascribing effects to it when it suits your argument, and denying them when it doesnt, even implying counterfactual scenarios where St. Augustine would have ultimately been better off without a father around.

The situation described in the OP is one where two people are in a loving relationship for over a year, and considering marriage, yet you referred to him "some random guy" and for some reason keep bringing up women being abused, and now you're going off about how generally awful paternal influence is. Get your man hatred under control.

Firstly, one can certainly ascribe bad influence on a bad character. St. Augustine himself attributes his conversion to his mother. If his father had been a good influence, I am sure Augustine would have given him some credit. Influence can be one sided. A bad man will give bad influence, not good. You can't say that everyone will give some of each, that is not realistic.

Once again, trads do not actually understand what moral influence is, and cannot conceive of morals or character being formed outside of supernatural grace or catechesis. The fact that he supported and loved his son (and, in passing, paid for his education, without which it's hard to imagine him becoming a doctor of the Church), provided a secure home for him and a name in society, purportedly contributed nothing morally, because he wasnt reading to little Augustine from the Baltimore Catechism every night.

[TheReturnofLive]

Here is a hypothetical case.  A couple has been dating for over a year.  They love each other but have concerns about marriage because one is a practicing Catholic and the other is not (but from a Catholic family).  The practicing Catholic does some sub-par practicing and she is expecting a child.

"sub-par practicing" lol.

As if there are many Catholics who don't sub-par practice.

Lord have mercy on her, her significant other, and the baby 

[queen.saints]

The traditional normal period of engagement is two weeks.

You need at least 3 weeks for the banns to be read.

Yes, that’s true. The banns were a regularization of local custom and the origin of the current “engagement period”. This shows that the church considered the time between “three consecutive holy days” as a normal waiting period.

This is an interesting article highlighting the changes and differences in marriage customs throughout history.

https://scholarsarchive.jwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1037&context=student_scholarship

“ The Elizabethan Era continued many values and practices from the Middle Ages. Some similarities in the wedding planning and celebration included a formal public announcement of the marriage, a feast following the ceremony and religious affiliation (more similar to the end of the Middle Ages than the beginning)...

The public announcement that the couple was to be married was called “Crying the Banns” and this “announcement would be made in church, three Sundays in a row. This is different than the announcements of the Middle Ages because in this time period weddings began to be much more religiously-affiliated.” (Knight, 2008)... This was a similar but slightly more formal announcement than that of the Middle Ages...

Although this era did not bring many big changes to wedding ceremonies, it did introduce some key aspects, such as the decoration and the announcement formality that we see today in many weddings. Decoration is a huge part of wedding ceremonies in modern times, and the Elizabethan Era brought about the beginning of that custom even though at this point in time, the decorations served a dual purpose to cover up lack of hygiene. This also marked the beginning of a more significant notice of engagement and even a longer period of engagement prior to the wedding as a result.“

Just like today, the expensive decorations are what cause the delay.

The Amish still have short engagements.


It’s interesting reading “Wedding Customs and Folklore” that even this was considered an imposition and the popular option for the rich was to pay for a marriage license, which dispensed with the need to wait for the banns.



“In New York too, banns were only for the vulgar, special licenses genteel, until retrenchments provoked by the Stamp Act forced a change of mind. A newspaper report of 13 December 1765 referred to the aversion thus:

‘We are creditably informed that there was a married last Sunday evening... a very respectable couple that had published three different times in Trinity Church. A laudable example and worthy to be followed. If this decent and for many reasons proper method of publication was once generally to take place, we should have no more clandestine marriage; and save the expense of licenses, no inconsiderable sum...!”

[Davis Blank - EG]

Yes, they had seriously discussed marriage before she got pregnant.  The reason they did not do it is because of the religion issue.  That is the only concern that I know of.

If that is the only reason then I would recommend marriage.  The baby needs a father and the greatest risk, as I saw it, was from a future divorce ripping the family apart.  If they were already discussing marriage and presumably both have judged the other of being decent character (and presumably the parents of both sides have examined their characters as well) then this sounds like it is time for marriage.

The man is still mentally young given that he probably spent 90% of all his previous years being brainwashed at public school and university.  Now that he is out of that he finally has the opportunity to learn and with life as a husband & father, with a good wife, and with some good books, he has a decent chance of coming back to the Faith over the years.

As long as the parents do not perceive either one as having obvious character flaws which would result in a likely divorce, then marriage sounds appropriate.

[GaudeMariaVirgo]

I agree that marriage is most likely in the best interest of the couple and their child, provided that both parties are of good character, love one another, and are happy/excited at the prospect of marriage and parenthood (religious differences aside). Is the young man explicitly anti-Catholic, or just nonpracticing/lukewarm about religion in general? If he is hostile to the faith or unwilling to raise the baby Catholic, that sounds like the only potential point of tension in the marriage; but if he's willing to go along with a Catholic upbringing for the child and actively wants to be a father and husband, it sounds like a no-brainer to me. Like Davis said, the couple might also want to work out their ideological views on divorce, since that would be the only other concern of mine in advising a Catholic to marry a non-(practicing) Catholic. 

All this with the caveat that I don't know the couple in question, of course, and am just going off of the information given!

[GaudeMariaVirgo]

And for what it's worth, I also agree about the moral and natural benefits for the baby of living with his married, biological parents, even if Catholic catechesis from the father's end starts out (or even remains) subpar. With the positive influence of the wife, her baby (and husband) will still be in a better position than most.

[james03]

What principles should inform her choice?

We are forgetting about his choice.  I'd wait until the child is born and then get a paternity test.  The other is the circumstances.  I'm assuming she was using birth control.  If she was on the pill, most likely she got pregnant on purpose to lock him down, in which case she is a liar, beyond the fibs that most women tell.

There are two choices, based on the kid, because he is the only one to consider in this scenario:

1.  Assuming this was on the up-and-up, and they were talking marriage anyway, marriage is the best route.  The kid gets a father.

2.  Put the baby up for adoption.  The kid gets a father.