M.Z. Forrest is a Catholic contributor to the group blog Vox Nova. His latest post tackles the topic of teen pregnancy in a rather unforgiving way. Normally, I would comment on the VN page, but for some reason he has decided to close the comments and stifle conversation. So, I'll try to continue it here. I think his misstep comes right at the beginning:
I do not find “keeping the baby” to be laudatory in the least. It is certainly better than the alternatives, but that is hardly saying much.He correctly says keeping the baby is better than the alternatives, the alternative being to kill the baby. He then says that this "is not saying much". Why, I ask, is this not saying much? I say that not killing the baby says quite a bit! I also think this is a choice that deserves to be celebrated, especially in the face of a hostile culture. It says a lot when someone makes a choice for life in the face of difficult circumstances. This is something to be applauded. An attitude that would condemn it or ignore the goodness of a choice for life is foreign to Catholicism and just plain unforgiving. Further, applauding the choice for life does not entail applauding the choice for pre-marital sex. I'm not sure why you would think it would.
7 comments:
I totally agree. Good Grief this really is nthing new. Catholics , many in our family tree< have gotten a child out of wedlock and quickly married. Much better than possibily killing them now
James,
It's good to know I'm not the only one who thinks M.Z.'s take on this is off. I really don't understand the point of his post.
I may open up comments later. I am unfortunately unable to keep an eye on things there today.
To be honest, I'm unsure of either of your criticisms. I don't offer much criticism of shotgun weddings. I in fact offer a defense of youth marriage, a common case where shotguns would be present. ;-) My primary criticism is of single parenthood and the failure to recognize the evil that it is.
Hey M.Z.,
If this is the case:
"My primary criticism is of single parenthood and the failure to recognize the evil that it is."
Then fair enough, I suppose I didn't read your post correctly! I was responding mainly to the section at the beginning of your post that I quoted here, which I took for you to be saying that we shouldn't applaud women who choose to keep their babies.
Further, applauding the choice for life does not entail applauding the choice for pre-marital sex.
Exactly. But neither should premarital sex be presumed evidence of inability to raise a child. And neither should removal of the child be a punishment for the sin. Some prodigals increase in wisdom by their error, and some of those "good sons" end up being the ones who say "I am going, Sir," and leave the job undone. Thus adoption is a loving individual choice and not something that is forced on the unwilling.
My gut feeling on reading the Forrest post was about like yours--to go further, I thought it read mean-spirited and very judgemental. If that's not what he meant to convey, perhaps he needs to go back over it with a critic's eye.
The beloved Ochlophobist echoes many of my own sentiments in a similarly insensitive manner.
http://ochlophobist.blogspot.com/2008/09/it-is-indicative-of-our-cultural-moment.html
Is that supposed to make it ok?
Post a Comment