If these two or anyone else for that matter have indeed committed this sin then they need to be disciplined and shamed, and not have people going about things like everything is just fine. There will be no Social Reign of Christ the King if we do not apply it in our own chapels first.

I doubt that stone-casting would be encouraged in a society where Christ reigns.

If the boy and girl marry in today's world, they would probably be condemning themselves to a life of destitution and poverty. Nowadays, the only viable job for a young man without higher education who needs to raise a family is the military. The divorce and illegitimacy rate for the enlisted class is very high. The officers have less of a divorce problem. The american military is undergoing major cutbacks. They are kicking many good people out. It's tough out there for people.

Let us pray for them and always try to see Christ in our neighbor - we must never assume or cast aspersions - we know what the Church Teaches but we also know that Our Lord didnt condemn the Woman caught in Adultery. As for poverty - GOD Provides. If you have a good job GOD provided it.   The old NO Argument for Birth control was similar - Poverty.   Trust GOD to provide. Better to marry and be impoverished  than to fornicate and end up in Hell.

I doubt that stone-casting would be encouraged in a society where Christ reigns.

Clare- Many on this forum have lost all sense of practicality and have dugg themselves into a wormhole of impracticality which is as scandalous as what they attempt to make seem scandalous in today's day and age.

Bishop Williamson recently said, in one of his recent Eleison Comments:

On the contrary the Catholic Church always taught up until Vatican II that every State as such has the right and even duty to coerce its citizens from practicing in public any of their false religions, i.e. all non-Catholic religions, so long as such coercion is helpful and not harmful to the salvation of souls. (For instance in 2012 freedom is so widely worshipped that any such coercion would scandalize the citizens of nearly all States and make them scorn, not appreciate, the Catholic religion. In that case, as the Church always used to teach, the State may abstain from using its right to coerce false religions.)

If a young couple walked into my church, and were attempting to make right with God in having their union blessed, even though they were wrong in the steps taken to having it blessed, I believe it would be unCatholic, and impracticable to shun them as a community. If they continued to live a life of sin, that is another matter. But who are we do judge the sins of others, who have seemingly converted their ways, simply because the nature of their sin is consequently 'visible' in the womb of the woman.

Has no one here sinned against the 6th and 9th commandments? I certainly am ashamed to admit I have; only every time I had, it did not end in a something visible, like a pregnancy. I was able to confess my sins and change my life. That's why the sacrament of confession is one which is private; it is a sacrament not performed in public, but which occurs behind in the confessional, behind a closed door usually. Our sin, even when we chose to repent, is one which is private. And lest we continue in it in shamefully, or shame-worthily, in a public manner, it is not the business of anyone, besides ourselves, Christ, and our Father Confessor; all of this regardless of their warped views which seem to posses so many young men here.

The one of the inherent aspects Church  is that it is social by its very nature. Before we take it upon ourselves to shun people who are attempting to become right with God, presuming that is what they are doing, we must take into account (a) are the dispositions of those in question holy; do they flaunt their sin, or are they meek and seem willing to reconcile what they have done and live holy lives. And (b) would the shunning, aka "coercion", be "helpful and not harmful to the salvation of souls."

The bottom line is we're dealing with people who have no problem with slandering innocent men but who take umbrage at anyone who says pregnancy out of wedlock is a disgrace, a public scandal.

Quote from: Sigismund

Quote from: Thorn

"bear the consequences for many months & years"?!!  Are you kidding me?
These girls have baby showers, congratulations poured on them, etc.  It's no big deal now.

Many years ago this (child out of wedlock) was rare as it was considered a sin and the child was called a bastard.
Then, people thought that bastard was too harsh a word so the child was called illegitimate & there was an increase in the occurences.
In the 60's the child was called a love child, women actually flaunted it, especially movie 'stars' and the rate greatly increased.
Now, that we've been gently simmered over the years, it's just no big deal is it?

 

There is no need to call a child names, no matter who the child's parents are.  How about just "child'?

On the contrary, words mean things. As long as something is different, it should have a different name.

And you certainly can't say an illegitimate child is the same as a legitimate child. After all, the Catholic Church doesn't think they're the same. Being illegitimate is one of the canonical impediments to becoming a priest.

I don't think it is under the 1983 Code, the only one in force in the Latin Church.  

And yes, I do think they are the same.  Equally precious to God, and therefore equally precious to any well ordered and Godly society.  This was true even when they could not be ordained.  

This not to say that out of wedlock pregnancy  are in any way good, or that fornication is not a sin.  It is.  The child, however, is not responsible for this.  

And yes, I do think they are the same.  Equally precious to God, and therefore equally precious to any well ordered and Godly society.  This was true even when they could not be ordained.  

But not of equally good family.

This not to say that out of wedlock pregnancy  are in any way good, or that fornication is not a sin.  It is.  The child, however, is not responsible for this.  

No, the child is not responsible, but that doesn't change the nature of his conception and upbringing, and the disabilities that can impose.

If Tele would've just put on his glasses, he would have seen the wedding rings the newly wed couple were wearing!!!!   :wink: