Author Topic: pregnant girl at mass (Read 32956 times)

Telesphorus · « **Reply #45 on:** June 14, 2012, 10:16:31 PM »

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

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

That's really beside the point. Even if I was mistaken in this instance, it wouldn't change the general pattern that is being seen.

Sigismund · « **Reply #46 on:** June 14, 2012, 10:17:09 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: Sigismund
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.

Quote
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.

Absolutely true.

Sigismund · « **Reply #47 on:** June 14, 2012, 10:19:13 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: Sigismund
Um, I think it just eliminates stone casting.

It doesn't eliminate civil punishment for a woman's adultery.

Read the Summa.

Also true, but there is no indication that anyone in this story committed adultery, is there?

However, didn't Our Lord stop the carrying out of a civil penalty for adultery?

Telesphorus · « **Reply #48 on:** June 14, 2012, 10:21:45 PM »

Quote from: Sigismund

Also true, but there is no indication that anyone in this story committed adultery, is there?

So why is Clare talking about casting stones?

Social censures for unwed motherhood are not a matter of "casting stones" - that is a toxic liberal and feminist response.

Quote

However, didn't Our Lord stop the carrying out of a civil penalty for adultery?

Not because the Old Law was wrong or immoral.

s2srea · « **Reply #49 on:** June 14, 2012, 10:27:39 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote
I certainly am ashamed to admit I have; only every time I had, it did not end in a something visible, like a pregnancy.

You've told us you were only recently married in the church.

I'm trying to figure out who has "cast stones."

The fact of the matter is, unwed motherhood is a public scandal. Yet even pointing out the fact that there is a problem of lax parenting and lax morals among trad youth is enough to be accused of "casting stones."

And the real reason for this: because there is strong support for liberal and lax standards. It's the same way apologies are made for drunken parties under the parents roof.

We're dealing with liberalized and liberalizing Catholics who like television, popular music, popular movies, etc, send their children to public schools, etc.

Trads are liberalizing.

You're right. It was recent. I will quote myself, emphasiszing in red what I'd like you to observe:

Quote

I certainly am ashamed to admit I have; only every time I had, it did not end in a something visible, like a pregnancy.

There's far more to sinning against the 6th and 9th commandments, than out of wedlock pregnancy and the sins which lead one to it.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #50 on:** June 14, 2012, 10:33:18 PM »

Anyone who interprets the story of the woman caught in adultery to mean that a woman is immune to civil punishment for adultery is misinterpreting scripture.

And that applies to other matters as well, since those who show strong support for unwed motherhood by vehemently opposing even a hint of social disapproval (because even the slightest hint of disapproval or concern is called "casting stones") are misinterpreting scripture.

Not that I expect these liberals to admit that.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #51 on:** June 14, 2012, 10:36:53 PM »

Quote

I answer that, It happens in two ways that a husband kills his wife. First, by a civil judgment; and thus there is no doubt that a husband, moved by zeal for justice and not by vindictive anger or hatred can, without sin, bring a criminal accusation of adultery upon his wife before a secular court, and demand that she receive capital punishment as appointed by the law; just as it is lawful to accuse a person of murder or any other crime.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5060.htm

Telesphorus · « **Reply #52 on:** June 14, 2012, 10:53:56 PM »

Quote

There's far more to sinning against the 6th and 9th commandments, than out of wedlock pregnancy and the sins which lead one to it.

But out of wedlock pregnancy is a public scandal.

The self-righteous attacks on those of us who are saying this is a serious problem affecting Trads are coming from people who've either committed the same scandalous acts, or who wish to attack anyone who points out the existence of such scandals as being like the men wishing to stone the woman caught in adultery.

They're coming from the type of people who have supported slanderous lies against men, in order to protect the false reputation of women.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #53 on:** June 14, 2012, 11:05:45 PM »

The extent of liberalism and feminism among trads is simply breathtaking.

It's gotten to the point now that mentioning that there's a problem with lax parenting, illegtimacy, etc, is equated to wanting to stone a girl.

This coming from someone who has himself had children outside of a valid Catholic marriage.

Hispanics have a 50% illegitimacy rate. They impugn the manhood of men who aren't "successful" with women like they claim to be.

Then they accuse you of gossip or casting stones if you notice that young trad women are getting pregnant out of wedlock.

Nadir · « **Reply #54 on:** June 15, 2012, 04:20:16 AM »

St Louise de Marillac and St Mungo were both illigitmate children who became saints.

Tomorrow (June 16) is the feastday of St Jean Francois Regis who is a patron saint for illegitimate chuldren. He devoted himself to the most thankless labour in the cities, withdrawing from vice wayward girls and women, especially the rescue and conversion of public women, whom he helped to persevere by providing them refuges, where they found honest means of livelihood.

clare · « **Reply #55 on:** June 15, 2012, 07:49:28 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Anyone who interprets the story of the woman caught in adultery to mean that a woman is immune to civil punishment for adultery is misinterpreting scripture.

At the risk of sounding like a raving feminist, are men who are caught in flagrante immune from civil punishment?

Quote

And that applies to other matters as well, since those who show strong support for unwed motherhood by vehemently opposing even a hint of social disapproval (because even the slightest hint of disapproval or concern is called "casting stones") are misinterpreting scripture.

Not that I expect these liberals to admit that.

Perhaps we don't want to be part of any pressure to abort that a woman might be under.

Abortion is a far bigger scandal, but unlike a baby, it is invisible.

Babies are always blessings from God.

clare · « **Reply #56 on:** June 15, 2012, 08:12:30 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: Sigismund
Also true, but there is no indication that anyone in this story committed adultery, is there?

So why is Clare talking about casting stones?

I was responding to this from Caraffa:

Quote

If these two or anyone else for that matter have indeed committed this sin then they need to be disciplined and shamed,...

And stone-casting seemed to be the obvious scriptural comparison.

Quote

Social censures for unwed motherhood are not a matter of "casting stones" - that is a toxic liberal and feminist response.

At the risk of sounding like a raving feminist again (which is easily done in discussions with you, Tele!), is unwed fatherhood not a scandal.

I remember recently making a comment in another thread about this kind of thing, where you said women's adultery was worse because of the possibility of introducing another man's child into the family, and I asked why it's less bad for a man to introduce a child into someone else's family.

I once heard of a case where a woman did commit adultery and conceived, and her husband implored her not to abort, and promised to raise the child as his own; but alas, she did abort, so he divorced her.

(Anyhow, this is all beside the point now I come to think of it, because, if the couple you write of are not married, the issue is not adultery, but fornication.)

clare · « **Reply #57 on:** June 15, 2012, 08:19:30 AM »

Quote from: Nadir

St Louise de Marillac and St Mungo were both illigitmate children who became saints.

And St Martin de Porres.

Sigismund · « **Reply #58 on:** June 15, 2012, 05:58:41 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: Sigismund
Also true, but there is no indication that anyone in this story committed adultery, is there?

So why is Clare talking about casting stones?

Social censures for unwed motherhood are not a matter of "casting stones" - that is a toxic liberal and feminist response.

Quote
However, didn't Our Lord stop the carrying out of a civil penalty for adultery?

Not because the Old Law was wrong or immoral.

Why, then?

Telesphorus · « **Reply #59 on:** June 15, 2012, 06:09:00 PM »

Quote from: Sigismund

Not because the Old Law was wrong or immoral.

What did Our Lord say to the men who were planning to stone her?

He certainly didn't say "Moses was wrong."