Births in nonideal circumstances

I’ve always learned that we should be sorry for our sins and wish to change them if we go back in time.

but let’s say the sins is fornication which resulted in a child or ivf treatment or rape.

I know these are not ideal circumstances and shouldn’t be appening but when you wish you didn’t commit the sin, you are also indirectly regretting the children that are born from those, aren’t you? it’s really hard to know that your very existence depends directly on someone doing something wrong

also, what is the best wayt o support people who have children in less than ideal circumstances, after they have repented? without making it seem like the sin is ok?

this is still really difficult for me

This is a difficult question, admittedly. You are not sorry for the good consequences of sin, but the sin itself. Hence, it is not regretting the child that is born, but the act that conceived the child. I don’t regret repentance, because it necessitates sin committed. God can bring good out of evil, and that the good is not regretted because evil brought it out, but the evil is still regretted. That is to say, in other words, one would have the good consequences without the sin if one could.

Anyway, enough of my rambling; I admit this is a difficult question.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

Wha???

Children are a gift from God. No matter the circumstances of their birth.
This is a real stretch angel.
:hypno:
Why would you think you should judge the parent in this scenario?
You support a person by being kind to their children.
Your existence is from GOD.

See your priest about these bizarre thoughts of yours.

Yep, I’m not really sure what ur (Angel) argument is: do u think children shouldn’t be born to parents who sin? Is that what ur saying? R u saying that 2 wrongs make a right, by aborting a child conceived by ‘sin’?
Are u therefore advocating abortion? Please be clear.

I said absolutely nothing about abortion

Well, what exactly r u saying? You are deliberately vague , & at the same time insinuating… Why can’t u say what u really think?

A human act, considered under the three fonts of morality, can have both good and bad elements. For example, the act itself might be bad (evil object), but the intention might be good. The act might have both good and bad consequences. Whatever is good in the act remains good, and whatever is bad in the act remains bad.

So if a bad act has some good consequences (e.g. procreation of a child), that good remains always good. The child is in no way tainted by the bad decision of a parent or anything else.

I don’t think the thoughts are so bizarre, it’s easy enough to follow a chain of logic to the conclusion she did. However, I think angell1 is overthinking things.

There are all sorts of examples where we can see this logic doesn’t make sense.
Imagine you demolish your leaky garage by accidentally pressing the gas instead of the brake pedal as you pull in. When you regret wrecking the garage, do you also regret that the garage roof no longer leaks, there is no longer black mold in all the drywall, and you don’t get a constant stream of mosquitoes migrating from the garage into the house?

No. You can cherish that which is good without having to connect it to every event that led up to it.

That’s a good analogy.
But posting history.
It’s real.

There are all kind of yes, bizarre unreal scenarios in which the OP gets all entangled with.
Nothing that ever directly has to do with her. thank goodness.
Scruples.
Real soul killers.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.