Daycare as grave matter

  • Thread starter Thread starter twf
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Actually many traditionalists argue that you must homeschool your children… In fact someone posted a letter from Fr. Ripperger (sp?) where he appeared to be arguing just that.
 
Inisfallen said:
40.png
Katie777:
Personally I believe that there is a difference between placing a child in daycare so the parents can afford lavish vacations, a new pool and other material things compared to working to make ends meet and put food on the table.
Click to expand...
At least where I live (New York City), nobody is putting their children in daycare just so they can afford more material things.

That just wouldn’t work, given that the cost of daycare where I live is around $2,000 per month.

I know whereof I speak - I’m the father of two small girls.
Click to expand...
And the sad thing is, to beat this, people in the suburbs here put thier kids in daycare locally for 10 or more hours a day because to commute there. People leave for Manhattan on the 7am train here.

Daycare costs are relative to the salary potential of the area.
 
Last edited:
The issue comes when people start deciding what is justified and what isn’t.

When someone says having a headache isn’t a justified reason… that’s a problem.

When someone says being ill isn’t a justified reason to miss Mass, that’s a problem.

We don’t have an issue with knowing certain things are problematic. We DO have a problem with others inflicting rules and boundaries that don’t actually exist in the teaching of the Church.
 
The Catholic Church itself has long established and maintained schools. So if this is indeed their belief, they are in defiance of Holy Mother Church.
 
As a former homeschool student…please no, some OTHER adults in my life would have been much more helpful than my overwhelmed mother. Some perspective for her might have helped too.

I am sure there are families it works great for. Mine was not one of them.
 
Last edited:
Right. Nobody ever died from not having sex.

Needs = Things we NEED to survive.

Wants = Things we desire.

I would still be curious to hear more about this ‘marital debt’ idea… it sounds so problematic to me.
 
I think you need to go back and re read my quote as I made a slight change and explained myself a little more but having said that, love and affection is a basic need. Everyone has a need for affection.

Again, just because a priest or a monk chooses celibacy doesn’t mean they stop being sexual beings but through constant self-appraisal do not act on those feelings. From what I have read it is not something they just don’t have but rather choose to not act on out of their love for God.

And just as we choose intimacy with our spouse in marriage, single individuals are to choose to wait until we are married.

This need is not the same as the need for water or air. If it wasn’t something that was natural, we would not have to make choices of when it is appropriate.
 
It looks like he got that from: 1 Corinthians 7:4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband. And in like manner the husband also hath not power of his own body, but the wife.

Maybe we shouldn’t assume that he doesn’t know what he is talking about as a Catholic priest. I am sure you would agree, that priests have received much extensive and rigorous training before being ordained.
 
I didn’t say he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. I said that the church does not teach that there is a marital debt owed because of the giving of our bodies to our spouse (though I accept that the broken-up nature of the posts might have obscured that).

Marriage is ordered toward the common good of the spouses. Requiring one spouse to engage in intercourse merely to satisfy the other is not directed at the common good of the spouses, but at the good of one spouse over the welfare of another.

I’m sorry, but where do we see the greater harm to the marriage? In a husband having to wait a few days for sex or in a wife being repeatedly forced (and it is forced) to have sex against their wishes?
 
SacredHeartBassist said:
In that very same talk he said it’s sinful for a wife to say no to sex when she has a headache and said what kind of man refuses his wife and also said that men should work three jobs instead of their wife working at all
Click to expand...
I have to imagine that this was taken totally out of context
 
Someone earlier said the wife has control of the husband and the husband of the wife so if the wife says she isn’t feeling it, she is controlling the husband and saying no. And if the husband says he is… he is controlling the wife and saying yes… but they’re still at an impasse.

This is the problem with taking such verses literally.
 
I am not buying that is the issue at hand. Church teaching, especially on morals, tends to be quite broad and leaves a lot up to prudential judgements. For example, the Catechism says about the sunday obligation:

2181 The Sunday Eucharist is the foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice. For this reason the faithful are obliged to participate in the Eucharist on days of obligation, unless excused for a serious reason (for example, illness, the care of infants) or dispensed by their own pastor

It gives a couple of examples, that’s it. And on those examples, it doesn’t go into much detail. But the Church gives us bishops, priests, moral theologians, we have spouses, and even forum such as this to help us make those prudential judgements. Indeed, the video in question, that is exactly what the priest seems to be doing.

But the vast majority of responses on this thread taking exception to him (or to the marital debt) are not really debating what constitutes justified reasons. They are upset that he said “sending your kids to day care requires a serious reason” (paraphrasing).
 
Pope Pius XI: “By this same love it is necessary that all the other rights and duties of the marriage state be regulated as the words of the Apostle: ‘Let the husband render the debt to the wife, and the wife also in like manner to the husband,’ express not only a law of justice but of charity.” [Casti Connubii, n. 25.]
 
It was, he gave the example of his father working three jobs to support their family and his mother staying home.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top