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.
So it looks like she has a choice between marrying a non-Catholic or being a single mother. These are both pretty bad things. What principles should inform her choice?
I guess I'd try to suss out each one's character with the aim of determining whether each one would be committed to marriage forever. If either one's character has major warning flags then divorce is likely and I think that would be more devastating to the child than having been raised (at least temporarily) without a father (there is always the chance he will one day have a step-father). The non-Catholic aspect is harder because it will primarily be the model of the father that guides the children in their faith over the long term. Presumably the goal then is a serious practicing Catholic man and that greatly limits things in addition to being a single mother. That challenge would need to be balanced out against the probability that the father would one day return to the Church.
Of course sitting down and interviewing either one is almost useless (on the pro-marriage side) since they'll say anything and once the emotions die down do the opposite. Of course in the interview were either to flat out indicate they have no desire to marry then that does (on the negative-marriage side) immediately answer the question.
When considering each one's character I would think about:
Man
- does he party?
- how many girlfriends has he had?
- does he drink a lot? does he use drugs?
- does he have a job? does he have a path towards a job?
- what is his financial situation? does he have any sense on this matter or just coasting through life?
- when was he planing on proposing to this woman? [can ask in interview, if he says "Oh I dunno" then bad answer, if he says "I was going to do it soon anyways so this is all fine just less than ideal" then that's fairly good"]
- are his parents married?
- what does he do in his free time?
- what are his views on divorce? [try to suss out if he has an innate revulsion against it or not]
If somehow he came out seeming like an ace husband without consideration for the Catholic aspect, then I'd want to try to see how likely it is that he would at least not be hostile towards raising a Catholic family. Is he an angry atheist or just someone who fell away because the N.O. lacks inspiration and sincerity? Does he think religion is dumb / evil or was he just bored? Is he in any way intrigued by the TLM or is he going to hate being dragged out every Sunday?
The woman needs to be analyzed as well. Many of the same questions involved. Divorce is most likely by the man in the early years (skipping out of town while baby is still a baby) but divorce is more likely from the woman when the family is grown up (kids are school age but she isn't happy and so she wants to find a new man to make her happy). This is the more disastrous outcome of the two bad outcomes.
What does she want out of life?
What does love mean to her? Is it just emotion?
Is she overly sentimental and unreliable?
Does she watch TV soap operas and have a distorted view of life?
Does she use Facebook or similar social media?
Things like that might indicate that she is not mentally prepared for marriage and would be a high risk for divorce.
I guess I would first try to determine the likelihood of divorce from either side before analyzing the non-Catholic aspect of it. There are reverts here (such as myself) and there might be a decent chance of a good man who had a lousy Catholic upbringing reverting to the Faith. Can't count on it but I guess my primary concern right now would be the risk of divorce.
Also because she was dating a non-Catholic to begin with that might indicate a problem from her side anyways with regards to the level of fervor in raising Catholic children. In other words, even were he to incidentally have been Catholic, that hypothetical fact does not seem to be of primary importance to her or her future hypothetical children (although not hypothetical now). So again I guess my primary concern is with divorce risk.
The tradition is to marry the father if at all possible. It's not traditional to be a single mother.
Wives have the promise of God in Scripture that if they have an unbelieving husband, they will be able to convert him by their good example. Even husbands have no such promise. Wives also receive the priceless marriage blessing during the Nuptial Mass. There is no blessing or promise in Scriptures for unwed mothers, only curses.
"In like manner also let wives be subject to their husbands: that if any believe not the word, they may be won without the word, by the conversation of the wives."
The exact situation you describe happened to a friend, except she was a good practicing Catholic who obviously made a big mistake. The tradition is to marry the father, which is what she did. Despite his initial flaws, she has been able to really bring out the very best in him through her humility and good attitude and they have a happy marriage. He's now become a serious practicing traditional Catholic and a good husband and father. They also have continued to have more adorable children, another advantage of getting married.
A surprising number of girls from school and church have also been in the same situation, but are now unwed mothers. It has not turned out well for them.
Quote from: Jayne on May 25, 2020, 10:03:18 AM
So it looks like she has a choice between marrying a non-Catholic or being a single mother. These are both pretty bad things. What principles should inform her choice?
Maybe "none of the above"? Because that's not an exhaustive list. If we're just dealing with hypotheticals, other options would include:
- Marry some other man who will forseeably be a better husband/father than the biological father
- Arrange that a Catholic family might adopt the child
Quote from: Daniel on May 26, 2020, 06:07:15 AM
Quote from: Jayne on May 25, 2020, 10:03:18 AM
So it looks like she has a choice between marrying a non-Catholic or being a single mother. These are both pretty bad things. What principles should inform her choice?
Maybe "none of the above"? Because that's not an exhaustive list. If we're just dealing with hypotheticals, other options would include:
- Marry some other man who will forseeably be a better husband/father than the biological father
- Arrange that a Catholic family might adopt the child
As everyone has probably guessed, the hypothetical case is based on one that exists in reality. These other options, while worth considering in a hypothetical way, would not be considered by the real couple in question.
I would second Davis's post about weighing the likelihood of divorce. Anything resembling a "shotgun wedding" carries an extremely high risk of divorce within 5 years.
Quote from: Jayne on May 25, 2020, 10:03:18 AM
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.
So it looks like she has a choice between marrying a non-Catholic or being a single mother. These are both pretty bad things. What principles should inform her choice?
For starters, I would say that they did not love each other. They lusted after each other. And, I say this because if their religious differences are/remain such an obstacle to marriage, combined with the fact that they fornicated, it is definitely not love. Therefore, I do not advise the next step to be marriage, for it is a sacrament.
Doesn't the SSPX usually recommend waiting until the baby is about 6 months to a year old before the couple gets married? That way a lot of the emotion and rush is taken out of things, and the couple can decide if they are actually suited to marriage at all. I would definitely recommend against marriage at this time. The only time it was "traditional" to marry the guy was when people were all Catholic. The "traditional" thing to do whenever the match was considered unsuitable was to have the girl adopt out the baby. You say they would never consider this...
If I were her I would wait, see if the guy seems like he would be a good husband and father on his own merit, not just because she got pregnant with him; although if he is not interested in the faith I don't care how nice or mature he seems, I would never marry him. The stigma of having a baby outside wedlock is actually not that horrible these days, maybe it should be...but it isn't. I have known plenty of couples where one came to the marriage with a child. Usually the new spouse is a little older, a little world-wise, understands that mistakes happen, and is willing to overlook the past to get a good Catholic spouse. She obviously needs to work on her faith and practice, so she will be desirable in this way as well. Marrying some random guy because you got pregnant is a terrible idea. All the misery of a bad marriage, fighting to raise your child Catholic, never being a united front...all bad.
:pray1:
If the man wants to be the father of the child I would suppose he has a right to it, and, barring a serious impediment, the woman is obligated to marry him.
The traditional normal period of engagement is two weeks. The reason for this is that it's important to enter marriage on the crest of enthusiasm, not after you've been stressed planning the wedding for a year or two, all the while getting less and less excited about the actual marriage and possibly committing countless sins of impurity.
The best thing a girl can do in the hypothetical situation is to jump at his offer with a big grateful smile. If ever there was a time to be happy and thankful, it's when you could end up as an abandoned fallen woman with an illegitimate baby, but instead a man is offering to make you an honest woman with a husband, home, and family.
The alternative is you marry someone you've made sure knows that, even though you're clearly far from perfect yourself, he's so horrible and marriage to him such a miserable prospect that you had to take months to convince yourself to swallow the bitter pill. Worst case is that he changes his mind.
Nobody likes an unenthusiastic response to their marriage proposal- offering to take care of a woman for the rest of her life and probably having just spent thousands of dollars on a ring- especially not when he's doing the honorable thing and life is going to be tough enough with enthusiasm.
The reason why adoption is a traditional second recourse is because the man is the one who knows he could probably do a lot better. The reason why it's called a "shotgun wedding" is because the expectation is that the man has to be held at gun point to marry the girl. She's very lucky that the non-practicing Catholic is the one who has his head screwed on straight enough to at least know some basic facts of life and is trying to make things right of his own volition.
He's the one who is probably wondering if he wants to marry someone- Catholic or not- who he now knows was willing to go that far without planning on marriage at some point.
Worst of all, even if some imaginary better man suddenly came along and wanted to marry her, her child would always be illegitimate. The only way to legitimize the child at this point is for the actual parents to get married.
Also, with the corona virus on, this is an ideal chance to have a quick, small wedding without raising any eyebrows.
Quote from: The Harlequin King on May 26, 2020, 08:31:25 AM
I would second Davis's post about weighing the likelihood of divorce. Anything resembling a "shotgun wedding" carries an extremely high risk of divorce within 5 years.
Based on which statistics?
Quote from: queen.saints on May 27, 2020, 05:33:55 AM
The traditional normal period of engagement is two weeks.
You need at least 3 weeks for the banns to be read.
Quote from: queen.saints on May 27, 2020, 05:34:28 AM
Quote from: The Harlequin King on May 26, 2020, 08:31:25 AM
I would second Davis's post about weighing the likelihood of divorce. Anything resembling a "shotgun wedding" carries an extremely high risk of divorce within 5 years.
Based on which statistics?
The last major study on shotgun marriages was in 2016 by Duke University for North Carolina. The divorce rate was 30% within a decade; and that's just under the narrow definition of marriages after conception but before birth, not counting post-birth marriages. Other factors can greatly increase the likelihood of divorce from here, like money matters, differences of religion, low education level, and so forth.
In any case, my advice was not "don't do it"; it was "think about it very carefully". A young woman in a pre-marital, accidental pregnancy is in a high-risk situation and prone to making bad decisions.
Quote from: queen.saints on May 27, 2020, 05:33:55 AM
The traditional normal period of engagement is two weeks.
[quote/]
I would be very interested to see some evidence of that. I have never heard of anything so short in my life.
Quote from: queen.saints on May 27, 2020, 05:33:55 AM
The traditional normal period of engagement is two weeks. The reason for this is that it's important to enter marriage on the crest of enthusiasm, not after you've been stressed planning the wedding for a year or two, all the while getting less and less excited about the actual marriage and possibly committing countless sins of impurity.
The best thing a girl can do in the hypothetical situation is to jump at his offer with a big grateful smile.
Wrong, that is not the best thing at all. Do you know how many women spend their lives being belittled by their husbands and treated badly b/c they "had" to get married. Also, why should she be grateful? This creates a horrible power dynamic in the marriage. This is as much his fault as hers, there is no question of "gratitude." Maybe if we didn't have DNA tests, but come on...it's 2020. You want the girl to spend her life feeling like the lucky one whom he condescended to marry? If ever there was a time to be happy and thankful, it's when you could end up as an abandoned fallen woman with an illegitimate baby, but instead a man is offering to make you an honest woman with a husband, home, and family.
The alternative is you marry someone you've made sure knows that, even though you're clearly far from perfect yourself, he's so horrible and marriage to him such a miserable prospect that you had to take months to convince yourself to swallow the bitter pill. Worst case is that he changes his mind.
Nobody likes an unenthusiastic response to their marriage proposal- offering to take care of a woman for the rest of her life and probably having just spent thousands of dollars on a ring- especially not when he's doing the honorable thing and life is going to be tough enough with enthusiasm.
The reason why adoption is a traditional second recourse is because the man is the one who knows he could probably do a lot better. The reason why it's called a "shotgun wedding" is because the expectation is that the man has to be held at gun point to marry the girl. She's very lucky that the non-practicing Catholic is the one who has his head screwed on straight enough to at least know some basic facts of life and is trying to make things right of his own volition.
He's the one who is probably wondering if he wants to marry someone- Catholic or not- who he now knows was willing to go that far without planning on marriage at some point.
Worst of all, even if some imaginary better man suddenly came along and wanted to marry her, her child would always be illegitimate. The only way to legitimize the child at this point is for the actual parents to get married.
"illegitimate" And what is that exactly? This isn't Medieval France. No one is barring the child from church, school, seminary, etc based on his legitimacy. That means nothing now. The baby doesn't bare a mark in the eyes of God.
Also, with the corona virus on, this is an ideal chance to have a quick, small wedding without raising any eyebrows.
And yet this goes against the advice of every traditional priest I have ever met; many of whom downright refuse to marry pregnant brides, and make them wait. They know what they are talking about. They spend their lives counseling couples who are struggling/divorcing/etc.
Quote from: John Lamb on May 27, 2020, 05:19:24 AM
If the man wants to be the father of the child I would suppose he has a right to it, and, barring a serious impediment, the woman is obligated to marry him.
He can be the father without being her husband! A women is never obligated to marry a man, especially not because she is pregnant. What nonsense. The only obligation you could argue would be that of a serious fiance who has pledged herself to a man. Even that "obligation" is based on old intricate social structures that looked on a broken engagement as shameful and put solemn betrothals in place to discourage them. Considering that almost 100% of wedding expenses are on the bride these days, it is the man who needs to be careful not to cancel things too late when the bride's family could be out thousands of dollars. Also, serious impediment...???? He is not a Catholic. That is already a huge, serious impediment. It should have kept this young lady from keeping company with him period. Unfortunately it did not.
Quote from: The Harlequin King on May 27, 2020, 09:12:41 AM
The last major study on shotgun marriages was in 2016 by Duke University for North Carolina. The divorce rate was 30% within a decade; and that's just under the narrow definition of marriages after conception but before birth, not counting post-birth marriages. Other factors can greatly increase the likelihood of divorce from here, like money matters, differences of religion, low education level, and so forth.
What was the divorce rate for non-shotgun weddings. Without that comparison the 30% figure is meaningless.
How old are these people?
Quote from: Armor of Light on May 27, 2020, 10:41:10 AM
How old are these people?
That is an excellent question.
Quote from: Armor of Light on May 27, 2020, 10:41:10 AM
How old are these people?
Mid-twenties. Both have jobs, employment experience and training.
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on May 27, 2020, 10:19:35 AM
And yet this goes against the advice of every traditional priest I have ever met; many of whom downright refuse to marry pregnant brides, and make them wait. They know what they are talking about. They spend their lives counseling couples who are struggling/divorcing/etc.
In Lithuania, it is the policy of the bishops (NO) that marriages cannot be performed under those circumstances, so it is a country-wide ban. This was apparently in response to a huge number of requests for annulment being based on a case that pregnancy had interfered with free consent.
Quote from: clau clau on May 27, 2020, 10:24:43 AM
What was the divorce rate for non-shotgun weddings. Without that comparison the 30% figure is meaningless.
I'm not sure. I'll grant you it's a good question. Nevertheless, careful discernment about the likelihood of divorce is a common-sense proposal.
Quote from: Jayne on May 27, 2020, 11:01:36 AM
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on May 27, 2020, 10:19:35 AM
And yet this goes against the advice of every traditional priest I have ever met; many of whom downright refuse to marry pregnant brides, and make them wait. They know what they are talking about. They spend their lives counseling couples who are struggling/divorcing/etc.
In Lithuania, it is the policy of the bishops (NO) that marriages cannot be performed under those circumstances, so it is a country-wide ban. This was apparently in response to a huge number of requests for annulment being based on a case that pregnancy had interfered with free consent.
Exactly. Even though this is not actually a legitimate reason for annulment, it is used and allowed by the modern bishops at an alarming rate. Not to mention that "shotgun" weddings dispose women to verbal abuse, belittlement, infidelity, etc. It is so insanely unfair that a women in this position is considered "used goods" and should be grateful to the guy who did exactly the same thing as her; and to be put down by the very man who put her in that position is insupportable. If she has the baby, life goes on, and then he says, "listen, I love you, why don't we get married, not because we have to, but because I love you" that would be different. I would pray and hope that he becomes Catholic of course.
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on May 27, 2020, 10:24:25 AM
Quote from: John Lamb on May 27, 2020, 05:19:24 AM
If the man wants to be the father of the child I would suppose he has a right to it, and, barring a serious impediment, the woman is obligated to marry him.
He can be the father without being her husband! A women is never obligated to marry a man, especially not because she is pregnant. What nonsense. The only obligation you could argue would be that of a serious fiance who has pledged herself to a man. Even that "obligation" is based on old intricate social structures that looked on a broken engagement as shameful and put solemn betrothals in place to discourage them. Considering that almost 100% of wedding expenses are on the bride these days, it is the man who needs to be careful not to cancel things too late when the bride's family could be out thousands of dollars. Also, serious impediment...???? He is not a Catholic. That is already a huge, serious impediment. It should have kept this young lady from keeping company with him period. Unfortunately it did not.
I think the baby is being overlooked here. If the child is brought up without the presence of the father, and later finds out that the only reason he wasn't there was that his mother/family wouldn't tolerate his being non-catholic, that might make him want to leave the faith; which would be understandable, since the faith shouldn't overturn our natural obligations to our children, and as they've conceived a child the number one priority should be working towards an environment where the child can be brought up normally with its father and mother. When I speak of an obligation I'm thinking of the child.
I don't know why fear of future divorce should be an obstacle either. They've already had intercourse and conceived a child, so according to nature they're already married; separating now would be physically and psychologically speaking identical to a divorce. I suppose the fear of getting the civil & ecclesiastical stamp on the relationship comes from all the legal obligations that come with it, and that might complicate a separation/divorce should it occur; but then presumably the father is going to be financially responsible for the child no matter what happens. This makes me sympathetic to those who in this situation avoid any official marriage and just choose to live together and raise the child as if they were married – a kind of natural law marriage. If laws and social obligations (like big wedding expenses) are putting people off getting officially married, that's a sign these laws and social obligations are acting as more of a hindrance than a help.
The fact is as long as they have this child, they should do everything they can to give it a normal upbringing. What might happen in the future doesn't change that.
Quote from: JayneIn Lithuania, it is the policy of the bishops (NO) that marriages cannot be performed under those circumstances, so it is a country-wide ban. This was apparently in response to a huge number of requests for annulment being based on a case that pregnancy had interfered with free consent.
Well this is the "problem", so to speak, with Catholic marriages: they're indissoluble. So yes, neither partner would want to put themselves in a position where if their spouse leaves them, they're forced to be single from then on if they don't want to be shunned by the Church*. So my advice to this couple would probably be to just carry on living together or maybe get a civil marriage, and if later on their relationship looks like it can meet the standards of a Catholic sacramental marriage, then they can marry in the Church. That seems like the common sense course of action. There's no point in getting a Catholic marriage if you don't truly intend to enter into that indissoluble, sacramental bond; that would be more or less hypocritical, and I sympathise with priests who are sick of people using Catholic churches to conduct weddings they don't appreciate or understand. They both need to have something of a religious conversion / catechesis before getting married in the Church. If this sounds scandalous, then maybe Pope Francis had a point after all in
Amoris Laetitia, about the disconnect between the Church's high and strict understanding of Christian marriage, and the prevailing culture which puts so few warnings and obstacles on entering into a carnal relationship. It's not just that people are only half- or quarter-catechised, it's that the culture itself is counter-catechetical. The Church's strict understanding of marriage developed in a strong Christian culture where people more or less knew their obligations, and where the cultural mores reinforced them.
* But then, at least among traditionalists, I suppose they're shunned anyway for having a child out of wedlock and living together. So it's a kind of damned-if-you-do / damned-if-you-don't situation: don't get married, and you're condemned as a fornicator, can't go to communion because you're committing a mortal sin every time you sleep with the person you're living and raising a child with; but if you do get married and later there's a separation, you risk being left alone for the rest of your life, or getting barred from communion if you do re-marry. So I suppose there's only two options: have a religious conversion and trust that God will pull your marriage together and make it work, and raise your child in the Church; or turn your nose up at the Church's legalism and have a lukewarm relationship with it for the rest of your life. Again, I think this is what Pope Francis was trying to work out in
Amoris Laetitia. For people in this situation, it's as though the sacraments are being used to push them away from the Church, rather than to draw them in. Yeah you can just well say, "they shouldn't have done it", but that's besides the point: the point is, how is the Church supposed to help them live a Christian life and bring up their child in a Christian house now that it has happened?
Quote from: John Lamb on May 27, 2020, 12:06:12 PM
.
So I suppose there's only two options: have a religious conversion and trust that God will pull your marriage together and make it work, and raise your child in the Church; or turn your nose up at the Church's legalism and have a lukewarm relationship with it for the rest of your life.
Those options are only the "only" options if you stay with the father. Single mothers can raise their children in the church, I have seen it quite a few times actually. If this young women chooses not to marry the guy it does not mean she is divorcing herself from the church.
I would also wonder if this young women would be able to raise her child within a big Catholic/trad family? Does she have uncles, brothers, cousins, who would be good male role-models? That would help a lot. Even living with her parents could give this child a father-figure in the person of the mom's dad.
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on May 27, 2020, 12:27:09 PM
Quote from: John Lamb on May 27, 2020, 12:06:12 PM
.
So I suppose there's only two options: have a religious conversion and trust that God will pull your marriage together and make it work, and raise your child in the Church; or turn your nose up at the Church's legalism and have a lukewarm relationship with it for the rest of your life.
Those options are only the "only" options if you stay with the father. Single mothers can raise their children in the church, I have seen it quite a few times actually. If this young women chooses not to marry the guy it does not mean she is divorcing herself from the church.
True; the assumption I'm running on is that the child comes first. Surely the church ought to be something that helps keep families together, not pull them apart. If you're looking at a devout Catholic woman who's conceived the child of a non-Catholic or anti-Catholic man, then I suppose we could imagine the woman separating from the father in order to guarantee the child a Catholic upbringing. But then surely even that is a last resort, since St. Paul speaks of the believing wife sanctifying the unbelieving husband, and there are examples in Church history where Christian queens would marry pagan husbands and evangelise them through the marriage. The parents obligation to stay together and raise their child is a
religious obligation. And the rights of a father to raise his child are primordial.
Quote from: John Lamb on May 27, 2020, 12:44:23 PM
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on May 27, 2020, 12:27:09 PM
Quote from: John Lamb on May 27, 2020, 12:06:12 PM
.
So I suppose there's only two options: have a religious conversion and trust that God will pull your marriage together and make it work, and raise your child in the Church; or turn your nose up at the Church's legalism and have a lukewarm relationship with it for the rest of your life.
Those options are only the "only" options if you stay with the father. Single mothers can raise their children in the church, I have seen it quite a few times actually. If this young women chooses not to marry the guy it does not mean she is divorcing herself from the church.
True; the assumption I'm running on is that the child comes first. Surely the church ought to be something that helps keep families together, not pull them apart. If you're looking at a devout Catholic woman who's conceived the child of a non-Catholic or anti-Catholic man, then I suppose we could imagine the woman separating from the father in order to guarantee the child a Catholic upbringing. But then surely even that is a last resort, since St. Paul speaks of the believing wife sanctifying the unbelieving husband, and there are examples in Church history where Christian queens would marry pagan husbands and evangelise them through the marriage. The parents obligation to stay together and raise their child is a religious obligation. And the rights of a father to raise his child are primordial.
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? There are plenty of devout women who's husbands don't ever convert. Now, I think there may be some gift given to the spouse in the afterlife/grace of final repentance (St. John Vianny had a few things like this) but I don not think miraculous conversions in this life are something one should count on just because one is Catholic. There is no "promise" in the Bible. That is the wrong idea. I have met many women who are raising their kids Catholic on their own. True, the husbands "let" them, but they don't get involved or passionate about it. All church going, sacraments, catechism, good example, vocational discussions, etc, are all on the mother. This gets exhausting for them very fast. Even if a husband is not doing anything to stop you, he probably won't be doing anything to help you, and that is awful. You have to also consider that this non-Catholic husband will come with a family, grandparents, uncles, etc...are they going to respect the faith, encourage good behavior, help the children strive for virtue, set examples of good lifestyle/morals? The mother might spend her life not only fighting the husbands wrong ideas about faith/life, but his whole family as well.
Staying with the father of a child conceived out of wedlock is not a moral obligation. I don't know where you got that, it is incorrect. The right of a
husband and father to raise his own child is primordial. If you drink the milk before buying the proverbial cow, you don't get to demand rights.
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on May 27, 2020, 02:04:26 PM
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.
If she doesnt marry the father her future prospects of marriage immediately plummet. Something to keep in mind.
I come from a family where my mother is a practicing Anglican, while my father is an atheist who only came to church on Christmas eve. My fiancee is from a family where the mother is Catholic and the father is atheist, but goes to mass with them every Sunday. These are not really crazy, untenable situations at all, and they can readily produce good fruit. Neother of us could imagine not having our fathers around growing up - our lives would likely be inordinately worse.
Quote from: Aeternitus on May 27, 2020, 02:44:44 PM
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on May 27, 2020, 02:04:26 PM
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.
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
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on May 27, 2020, 03:16:24 PM
Quote from: Aeternitus on May 27, 2020, 02:44:44 PM
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on May 27, 2020, 02:04:26 PM
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!
Quote from: Graham on May 27, 2020, 03:51:12 PM
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on May 27, 2020, 03:16:24 PM
Quote from: Aeternitus on May 27, 2020, 02:44:44 PM
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on May 27, 2020, 02:04:26 PM
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.
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on May 27, 2020, 04:04:41 PM
Quote from: Graham on May 27, 2020, 03:51:12 PM
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on May 27, 2020, 03:16:24 PM
Quote from: Aeternitus on May 27, 2020, 02:44:44 PM
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on May 27, 2020, 02:04:26 PM
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.
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?)
Quote from: Lydia Purpuraria on May 27, 2020, 04:24:33 PM
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.
Quote from: Graham on May 27, 2020, 04:17:22 PM
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on May 27, 2020, 04:04:41 PM
Quote from: Graham on May 27, 2020, 03:51:12 PM
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on May 27, 2020, 03:16:24 PM
Quote from: Aeternitus on May 27, 2020, 02:44:44 PM
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on May 27, 2020, 02:04:26 PM
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?
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on May 27, 2020, 04:56:21 PM
Quote from: Graham on May 27, 2020, 04:17:22 PM
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on May 27, 2020, 04:04:41 PM
Quote from: Graham on May 27, 2020, 03:51:12 PM
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on May 27, 2020, 03:16:24 PM
Quote from: Aeternitus on May 27, 2020, 02:44:44 PM
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on May 27, 2020, 02:04:26 PM
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.
Quote from: Jayne on May 25, 2020, 10:03:18 AM
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 :pray3:
Quote from: Maximilian on May 27, 2020, 08:51:08 AM
Quote from: queen.saints on May 27, 2020, 05:33:55 AM
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...!"
QuoteYes, 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.
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!
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.
QuoteWhat 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.
Quote from: james03 on June 06, 2020, 10:17:53 AM
QuoteWhat 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.
He might get
two fathers...
Quote from: james03 on June 06, 2020, 10:17:53 AM
QuoteWhat 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.
Jaded much? It sounds like they were in a relationship that was committed enough that I don't think he would need to worry about a paternity test. Secondly, "got pregnant on purpose?" Do you know how often condoms and pills fail? All the time. Do you honestly think most American women aren't on birth control or using condoms? They are, but these methods fail all the time, hence the large number of abortions.
Also, do not assume she was using anything. If these intimate encounters were not premeditated, but simply fallen into b/c of a lack of self control/parental supervision/good chaperoning/etc, then neither the man or women would have been "prepared" in that way. I know couples who struggled to stay chaste in unguarded relationships. They did not run out and buy a bunch of birth control b/c every time they fell they would be really sorry and regretful, and try hard never to do it again. To buy condoms and keep them handy would be to willingly give in to future sin.
Quote from: Maximilian on May 27, 2020, 08:51:08 AM
Quote from: queen.saints on May 27, 2020, 05:33:55 AM
The traditional normal period of engagement is two weeks.
You need at least 3 weeks for the banns to be read.
Not if you ask KK nicely.