8 Simple Rules for dating a Duggar Daughter

[masondoggy]

Yes, I was noting that while watching the documentary Devil’s Playground.

On the one hand, the teens and young adults are free to enjoy their rumspringa and sex drugs and rock and roll, but it’s very difficult to get out and lead a normal middle class American life (even a normal middle class Evangelical life) with an 8th grade education.

The documentary showed one young woman who managed to make the jump from the Amish to something more like mainstream Evangelicalism, but it seemed like for most, the choice that rumspringa presents is between 1) a normal Amish life and 2) a very hardscrabble, minimal existence on the outside. But there is technically a choice, and it is part of their system.

And even in the Quiverful/Gothard circles, technically they have a choice to leave. Unlike the FLDS where they are literally fenced in and physically prevented from leaving. But in the same way, there isn’t much of a choice in the end because neither of those sects prepare their children to live in the real world and essentially shun them if they do leave. So they are faced with the choice of leaving everything and everyone they know with no real life skills that allow independence. So in the end = no choice. And that is totally against Catholic teaching. Catholic parents have an obligation and responsibility to educate their children and prepare them to live in the world.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Supposing a Duggar girl wants to dedicate her life to God by remaining single and serving others, as a Catholic nun does? Is that even an option for her? I know they’re not Catholic themselves, but still… you would figure that any Christian would recognize that there are more ways to live than just being a baby factory. What if a Duggar girl is infertile, what then? If all of her worth has been concentrated towards that, what then?

HoosierDaddy was talking about the problematic use of the word “brainwashing.” I don’t think teaching people (especially young ones), trying to influence them and teach them, etc. constitutes brainwashing. Because if it did, then brainwashing would mean basically nothing.

Maybe we can come up with a better definition of brainwashing. When I’ve seen movies like Jesus Camp, or documentaries about radical Islam or the white power movement, that stuff does not seem to me like the same thing that the average Christian/Catholic/other parent does to their children. It seems to involve permanent infantilization, not only can the subject not accept other worldviews, it’s best that he/she doesn’t even know they exist. He/she is not permitted to question in order to gain better understanding, he/she must simply accept what he/she is told no matter what. Brainwashing, it seems to me, is a rejection of all reason and of all discourse. And, since we were given minds to reason by God, brainwashing would be a rejection of God.

 

[masondoggy]

Imo, the brainwashing isn’t so much Jim Bob and Michelle brainwashing their children but that Jim Bob and Michelle were sucked into the Gothard movement and brainwashed.

Neither of them were born into that movement, as far as I know. Especially Michelle. I don’t think her family even approves of their lifestyle.

 

[Xantippe]

Re: the Duggars as an antidote to an anti-life, anti-chastity world.

There’s a quote from Martin Luther about how humanity is like a drunk trying to ride a horse. First he falls off one side and then he overcompensates, leans in the other direction, and falls off the other side, too.

Preserving chastity does not need to mean withholding meaningful education, remunerative work and independence from young women.

 

[sailor28]

I appreciate this thread. I see a paradigm shift among conservative Catholics and their view of the Duggars. Just a few years ago a thread like this on CAF would not be unfolding like it is now. The Duggar’s were loved and embraced among Catholics. There was no questioning of their beliefs. I remember being part of a Duggar discussion on another Catholic blog and any criticism of them was not taken well.

Many of you have written clear and compelling examples of spiritual and emotional abuse in this family. Waiting until marriage to have sex and having more than a dozen kids does not make a couple healthy spiritually or emotionally.

There are still Catholics that embrace these views so it is very important to have discussions like this.

 

[sailor28]

OP, you may find the site No Longer Quivering to be helpful in understanding where some of the other posters are coming from. Though many of the posts are virulently anti-Christian, one can understand (if not agree with) the perspective of the posters who grew up in such situations. (If one is beaten multiple times a week as a teenager to “drive Satan out of you,” for the most minor offences such as “having an insufficiently humble spirit,” one is unlikely to be able to understand the idea of God as love.) You might also look at Homeschoolers Anonymous, which details the sort of educational, emotional, and spiritual abuse rife in movements which believe that every aspect of a woman’s life must be kept under the tightest possible control.

I grew up in a Catholic community which imitated in many ways the situations described in those blogs. To be blunt, it is difficult to understand just what scars are left on a person who grows up with that sort of concept of God and His place in family life.

Women in communities like this are treated very, very badly if they don’t follow the dictates of the men who put themselves above them.

I remember one woman who attended our church who was (gasp of horror) divorced from her kids’ father. No one knew her well enough to know why (who would associate themselves with such a terrible sinner?), but she lived, to all appearances, a perfectly ordinary life. No boyfriends, no dating, her life revolved around raising her kids and working hard to support them.

Because of her divorce, she and the boys were openly shunned by virtually the entire parish. The boys attended the youth group, but were treated very badly by the leaders–not being allowed to go on trips that everyone else was going on with no other information than “they can’t come,” etc. At the coffee and donuts hour after Mass, I never ONCE saw another adult speak to her. She presumably attended because a few of the kids would (defying parental authority) play with/hang out with her kids from time to time. I was one of them.

At some point, it became obvious that she was pregnant. Gossip ran riot. No one cared that she had a couple of family members to help her and no one else. No one gave any thought to the kids. No, “everyone” knew that That Was To Be Expected from Women Like That. The nastiness towards the existing kids, if anything, increased.

According to her oldest kid, who confided in me, someone jumped her mom after work and raped her. Mom chose to keep and raise the baby. She hardly felt inclined to inform all and sundry of her rape when they’d never so much as spoken kindly to her before.

That woman was one of the bravest women I ever knew. I still don’t quite understand why she continued to attend that church; the only guess I ever came up with was that it was the only church in the area with the Tridentine Mass, and perhaps she was very attached to it. I don’t know.

I do know that when another member of the congregation decided to leave his stay-at-home wife of 25 years (and mother of his seven kids) to “marry” a woman young enough to be his daughter, though they’d been mainstays of the congregation, exactly one family stepped up to help the mom who’d been left with a houseful of kids, a degree that was twenty-odd years out of date, and no work history. I’m sure there were two sides to the story–there always are–but I fail to see how anything could excuse abandoning one’s wife and kids to shack up with a much younger woman. Why did no one else help? Because if he left, she must have done something to deserve it. She must have been a bad wife. She must not have been (insert quality here) enough, so it wasn’t his fault he left!

Insofar as chastity goes, I note with dry amusement that though I was considered the parish “slut” (and I quote) for attending public school my last two years of high school (long story), I was one of the minority in that youth group who waited to have sex until marriage, if evaluating only by the marital and offspring status of other former member on Facebook.

We were indoctrinated to obey all parental direction without question, to never ask “why,” to accept what we were taught at face value and think about it no further because that was an example of a “prideful spirit,” to shun anyone who didn’t measure up to our standards as “worldly” and “sinful”–and it certainly didn’t serve us well when we hit the real world, did it, judging by the number of single moms and unmarried dads I see from this group on Facebook.

This is heartbreaking. It is true that the Duggar form of spiritual abuse is in the Catholic Church too. I left my parish of 20 years because I saw families heading in this direction. It brought a lot of toxic beliefs to the community. There is this belief that if you embrace the most extreme rules you are holier. I know that a lot of these kids will need a lot of therapy when they reach adulthood. I’ve already seen the fallout from extreme authoritarian parenting. It becomes an obstacle to grace when these kids become adults. They don’t want to have anything to do with the church because they never experienced the authentic love, mercy, compassion and forgiveness of God.

 

[Xantippe]

This is heartbreaking. It is true that the Duggar form of spiritual abuse is in the Catholic Church too. I left my parish of 20 years because I saw families heading in this direction. It brought a lot of toxic beliefs to the community. There is this belief that if you embrace the most extreme rules you are holier. I know that a lot of these kids will need a lot of therapy when they reach adulthood. I’ve already seen the fallout from extreme authoritarian parenting. It becomes an obstacle to grace when these kids become adults. They don’t want to have anything to do with the church because they never experienced the authentic love, mercy, compassion and forgiveness of God.

Yes.

People are very lucky to come out of spiritually abusive families and communities with any faith at all left.

 

[Rau]

…The purpose of this thread was to look at how **their dating rules honor God **and each other for the couple. I’ve seen too many pregnancies and living together couples and wished to discuss that. We as Catholics can do better than we are.

Perhaps - but do you really believe that holding hands, hugging or kissing dishonour God? P

Pre-marriage pregnancies should probably be attributed (mostly) to other deeper factors than whether holding hands was allowed. The Duggar children are only prepared to accept these dating restrictions (I suggest) because they already have the personal traits that would not likely see them engage in pre-marital sex. Their personal traits guide them - not the dating rules.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

I appreciate this thread. I see a paradigm shift among conservative Catholics and their view of the Duggars. Just a few years ago a thread like this on CAF would not be unfolding like it is now. The Duggar’s were loved and embraced among Catholics. There was no questioning of their beliefs. I remember being part of a Duggar discussion on another Catholic blog and any criticism of them was not taken well.

Many of you have written clear and compelling examples of spiritual and emotional abuse in this family. Waiting until marriage to have sex and having more than a dozen kids does not make a couple healthy spiritually or emotionally.

There are still Catholics that embrace these views so it is very important to have discussions like this.

Uh… I don’t think any of us have said that it’s wrong to save sex for marriage. It is right. But rules against hugging, hand holding and having any private conversations are on a different level completely. And I certainly don’t think any of us object to a couple having as many kids as they possibly can, it’s wonderful when a couple does so. It’s just that they shouldn’t feel compelled to do so, throwing all caution to the wind.

 

[Walking_Home]

The Catholic Church does not support “quiverfull” ideology – that women are to produce as many babies as possible.

LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON THE COLLABORATION OF MEN AND WOMEN
IN THE CHURCH AND IN THE WORLD

Although motherhood is a key element of women’s identity,** this does not mean that women should be considered from the sole perspective of physical procreation****. In this area, there can be serious distortions, which extol biological fecundity in purely quantitative terms and are often accompanied by dangerous disrespect for women**.

Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, May 31, 2004, the Feast of the Visitation of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

• Joseph Card. Ratzinger
  Prefect

• Angelo Amato, SDB
  Titular Archbishop of Sila
  Secretary

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Hoosier Daddy, thank you for clarifying that you do have some disagreements with the Duggars’ practices. However, I get the feeling that you have a rather traditionalist view of a husband/father’s role as the “spiritual leader of the household” and as far as I know, this view is not universal among Catholics. (I am not referring to “Cafeteria Catholics” but many CAF posters who profess obedience to Church teaching regarding contraception, pro-life issues, etc. have more of a “mutual submission” take on marital roles.)

Also, I think there is a BIG difference between respecting a parent and obeying them. As casslean quoted from the CCC,

As they grow up, children should continue to respect their parents. They should anticipate their wishes, willingly seek their advice, and accept their just admonitions. Obedience toward parents ceases with the emancipation of the children; not so respect, which is always owed to them. This respect has its roots in the fear of God, one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Can’t get more orthodox than that. I also think there is a difference between a wife submitting to her husband and obeying him. A wife CHOOSING to submit to her husband regarding family decisions because she believes this is Biblical, is different than a wife OBEYING a husband like a child because she is not considered competent to make her own decisions.

As for the father “giving away the bride”, of course if you want to give JB the benefit of the doubt you can go ahead, and I know many Catholic brides incorporate a father walking her down the aisle into her marriage ceremony anyway, but the “Who gives this woman to this man” question, which WAS part of the Jill/Derek wedding, is not part of Catholic marriage liturgy.

Per CAF Apologist Michelle Arnold, from this blog post:
[catholic.com/blog/michelle-arnold/dont-give-away-the-bride](http://healthy spiritually or emotionally)

Catholics believe that the man and woman give themselves to each other in marriage. The reason why the question “Who gives this woman to this man?” never appears in a Catholic marriage liturgy is because the freedom of both parties to marry each other is so important that any suggestion that there is a lack of freedom by the bride to enter into the marriage—that she has, instead, been “given” into marriage by her father alone or by her parents together or by anyone else—could call into question the validity of the marriage. I strongly urge Catholic wedding celebrants, parents, and couples to stoutly refuse to foster or participate in “giving away the bride,” on the basis of religious principle

The other problem I have with the idea of the patriarchal father figure that oversees courtships as a universally good idea, is that this assumes that all fathers are competent to make such decisions. There have been many topics on CAF about parents who reject suitors for racist reasons, the general consensus on such parents is that the children are NOT bound to respect their parents in such bigotry. (Although I think if parents have objections for reasons such as suspecting immigration scams, that is different. I am talking about parents objecting to an otherwise fine spousal candidate ONLY due to race.)

And while I have never accused the Duggars of being “evil” and I do think Jim Bob is acting in what he believes are his children’s best interest, not all parents do. Much as I support a woman’s right to own property in her own name (something that used to be illegal in many places), because while not all husbands would use control over his wife’s property to abuse her, unfortunately, some do.

VLM, I don’t think sailor28 was saying that saving sex for marriage and having many children was “wrong” or “unhealthy”, I think the point is that just because someone saves sex for marriage and has many children, doesn’t automatically mean guarantee a marriage that is “healthy spiritually or emotionally”.

I do think that the more critical approach to Duggars among Catholics, and perhaps conservative Christians in general, is due to the fact that 10 years ago, when they were first featured on TV, all the children were still underage, and parenting approaches that could be considered reasonable for children and teenagers, are not quite as reasonable for grown adults.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Hoosier Daddy, thank you for clarifying that you do have some disagreements with the Duggars’ practices. However, I get the feeling that you have a rather traditionalist view of a husband/father’s role as the “spiritual leader of the household” and as far as I know, this view is not universal among Catholics. (I am not referring to “Cafeteria Catholics” but many CAF posters who profess obedience to Church teaching regarding contraception, pro-life issues, etc. have more of a “mutual submission” take on marital roles.)

Also, I think there is a BIG difference between respecting a parent and obeying them. As casslean quoted from the CCC,

Can’t get more orthodox than that. I also think there is a difference between a wife submitting to her husband and obeying him. A wife CHOOSING to submit to her husband regarding family decisions because she believes this is Biblical, is different than a wife OBEYING a husband like a child because she is not considered competent to make her own decisions.

As for the father “giving away the bride”, of course if you want to give JB the benefit of the doubt you can go ahead, and I know many Catholic brides incorporate a father walking her down the aisle into her marriage ceremony anyway, but the “Who gives this woman to this man” question, which WAS part of the Jill/Derek wedding, is not part of Catholic marriage liturgy.

Per CAF Apologist Michelle Arnold, from this blog post:
[catholic.com/blog/michelle-arnold/dont-give-away-the-bride](http://healthy spiritually or emotionally)

The other problem I have with the idea of the patriarchal father figure that oversees courtships as a universally good idea, is that this assumes that all fathers are competent to make such decisions. There have been many topics on CAF about parents who reject suitors for racist reasons, the general consensus on such parents is that the children are NOT bound to respect their parents in such bigotry. (Although I think if parents have objections for reasons such as suspecting immigration scams, that is different. I am talking about parents objecting to an otherwise fine spousal candidate ONLY due to race.)

And while I have never accused the Duggars of being “evil” and I do think Jim Bob is acting in what he believes are his children’s best interest, not all parents do. Much as I support a woman’s right to own property in her own name (something that used to be illegal in many places), because while not all husbands would use control over his wife’s property to abuse her, unfortunately, some do.

VLM, I don’t think sailor28 was saying that saving sex for marriage and having many children was “wrong” or “unhealthy”, I think the point is that just because someone saves sex for marriage and has many children, doesn’t automatically mean guarantee a marriage that is “healthy spiritually or emotionally”.

I do think that the more critical approach to Duggars among Catholics, and perhaps conservative Christians in general, is due to the fact that 10 years ago, when they were first featured on TV, all the children were still underage, and parenting approaches that could be considered reasonable for children and teenagers, are not quite as reasonable for grown adults.

Feel free to start a thread on headship of the husband spiritually. Or just read the many already posted.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I appreciate this thread. I see a paradigm shift among conservative Catholics and their view of the Duggars. Just a few years ago a thread like this on CAF would not be unfolding like it is now. The Duggar’s were loved and embraced among Catholics. There was no questioning of their beliefs. I remember being part of a Duggar discussion on another Catholic blog and any criticism of them was not taken well.

Many of you have written clear and compelling examples of spiritual and emotional abuse in this family. Waiting until marriage to have sex and having more than a dozen kids does not make a couple healthy spiritually or emotionally.

There are still Catholics that embrace these views so it is very important to have discussions like this.

Hmmmm

Do you believe sex before marriage is moral or immoral?
Do you think that having more than 12 kids is unhealthy spiritually and emotionally?

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Feel free to start a thread on headship of the husband spiritually. Or just read the many already posted.

Well, if you’re just going to completely ignore my points, even the ones which had nothing to do with the “headship of the husband spiritually”, then I hope you don’t mind if I do the same to yours from now on. Have a nice day.

 

[Xantippe]

Hoosier Daddy, thank you for clarifying that you do have some disagreements with the Duggars’ practices. However, I get the feeling that you have a rather traditionalist view of a husband/father’s role as the “spiritual leader of the household” and as far as I know, this view is not universal among Catholics. (I am not referring to “Cafeteria Catholics” but many CAF posters who profess obedience to Church teaching regarding contraception, pro-life issues, etc. have more of a “mutual submission” take on marital roles.)

Also, I think there is a BIG difference between respecting a parent and obeying them. As casslean quoted from the CCC,

Can’t get more orthodox than that. I also think there is a difference between a wife submitting to her husband and obeying him. A wife CHOOSING to submit to her husband regarding family decisions because she believes this is Biblical, is different than a wife OBEYING a husband like a child because she is not considered competent to make her own decisions.

As for the father “giving away the bride”, of course if you want to give JB the benefit of the doubt you can go ahead, and I know many Catholic brides incorporate a father walking her down the aisle into her marriage ceremony anyway, but the “Who gives this woman to this man” question, which WAS part of the Jill/Derek wedding, is not part of Catholic marriage liturgy.

Per CAF Apologist Michelle Arnold, from this blog post:
[catholic.com/blog/michelle-arnold/dont-give-away-the-bride](http://healthy spiritually or emotionally)

The other problem I have with the idea of the patriarchal father figure that oversees courtships as a universally good idea, is that this assumes that all fathers are competent to make such decisions. There have been many topics on CAF about parents who reject suitors for racist reasons, the general consensus on such parents is that the children are NOT bound to respect their parents in such bigotry. (Although I think if parents have objections for reasons such as suspecting immigration scams, that is different. I am talking about parents objecting to an otherwise fine spousal candidate ONLY due to race.)

And while I have never accused the Duggars of being “evil” and I do think Jim Bob is acting in what he believes are his children’s best interest, not all parents do. Much as I support a woman’s right to own property in her own name (something that used to be illegal in many places), because while not all husbands would use control over his wife’s property to abuse her, unfortunately, some do.

VLM, I don’t think sailor28 was saying that saving sex for marriage and having many children was “wrong” or “unhealthy”, I think the point is that just because someone saves sex for marriage and has many children, doesn’t automatically mean guarantee a marriage that is “healthy spiritually or emotionally”.

I do think that the more critical approach to Duggars among Catholics, and perhaps conservative Christians in general, is due to the fact that 10 years ago, when they were first featured on TV, all the children were still underage, and parenting approaches that could be considered reasonable for children and teenagers, are not quite as reasonable for grown adults.

Yes.

In practice, the more eager a father is to exercise that much control over his children’s courtships and marriages, the less qualified he is to exercise that control.

Down the road, I hope I will have a lot of humility about my role in my kids’ romantic lives. I can certainly ask questions (“So, when does Steve expect his ukulele performance career to take off?”), but I don’t think it’s my place to be sitting in judgment on my kids’ future sweethearts. I’ve been in the hot seat where I was being weighed and found wanting and where for years, there was nothing I could do to get approval from one of my in-laws, and it was a lousy place to be.

As a parent, while one hopefully has some acquired wisdom, one is also an interested party. This stranger, this interloper, is the person who (if all goes well) is going to replace you in your child’s affections, will see them almost every morning and almost every night, and will be living happily with them when you are dust. A lot of parents find that a tough pill to swallow.

 

[Xantippe]

Hmmmm

Do you believe sex before marriage is moral or immoral?
Do you think that having more than 12 kids is unhealthy spiritually and emotionally?

Let’s just say that it’s possible to be a virgin at marriage and have 13 kids and be an abusive parent who makes their kids hate God.

Just being a virgin at marriage and the parent of a large family is not some sort of express route to heaven.

I think that’s more or less what was meant.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Let’s just say that it’s possible to be a virgin at marriage and have 13 kids and be an abusive parent who makes their kids hate God.

Just being a virgin at marriage and the parent of a large family is not some sort of express route to heaven.

I think that’s more or less what was meant.

I think the poster should clarify rather than have other’s say what they meant. If the poster thinks premarital sex is something the Church is wrong about, or that a family is sinning to have many children, I would like to think they could express that view.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I love rules like these.

They are to me, what firewalls and systems are to a hacker.

 

[Xantippe]

I think the poster should clarify rather than have other’s say what they meant. If the poster thinks premarital sex is something the Church is wrong about, or that a family is sinning to have many children, I would like to think they could express that view.

Certainly.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I love rules like these.

They are to me, what firewalls and systems are to a hacker.

At least you are putting all us fathers on warning…