Daycare as grave matter

  • Thread starter Thread starter twf
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
twf said:
On another thread it was claimed that a certain popular “traditionalist” priest teaches that it is a grave sin for a mother to put her children in daycare without true grave necessity.
Click to expand...
Ok, I don’t know who said this, so I can’t speak fo the priest, but we have to remember that some times things are taken out of context and I have heard of this topic before.

I am a mom and have had to place my kids in daycare so I can relate to your concern. I will play “devils advocate” here, I think there are some things here to pay attention to:

Notice it is said “it is a grave sin for a mother to put her children in daycare without true grave necessity”.
Being a mother I can attest that WE (mothers) are the first teachers and parental roles for our children. So yes, it would be best if WE can take care of them. However, notice that it says without true grave necessity. This is important to notice because I don’t think he means YOU HAVE ARE A BAD MOTHER for placing your son in daycare…

It means if a mother chooses to leave their child in day care everyday so she can go out shopping, do nothing, lay around, do drugs, drink or whatever selfish act the mother wants (hence, without true grave necessity) then it is a sin.

However, most of us work and do not have the opportunity to have our kids 24/7. I do have to admit that I made a decision to change careers so I could spend time with the kids more and decided once NOT TO WORK and homeschool my child for his benefit. Did I have necessity to work? I could say yes, but I also looked at what my son was going to gain by spending time with me as a teacher and his benefits were going to be greater than my benefits.

Please don’t take it personal, take everything like a grain of salt and study it. God knows you and why you have to make your decisions. That’s what matters. Don’t let someone else disrupt your peace.

Take Care!
 
Probably one of the things going on here is poor use of the term “grave.”

It might be more illuminating to use “serious” instead, because grave (to the English-speaking ear) suggests life-and-death necessity, whereas “serious” does not have that connotation.

Edited to add: We run into the same problem in NFP discussions. I believe it’s a Latin translation problem.
 
Last edited:
Oh this should be a fun one for a game of Slippery Slope.

How many hours a day can parents be apart from their children before it’s considered “not raising them?”

Do I have the moral high ground because I homeschool, (short answer: NO), unlike those heathen parents who send their children to (gasp!) school during the day and therefore “don’t raise them?”
 
I said it another thread where this came up… I really think he’s speaking in ‘perfect world’ terms. Obviously each situation is different and the mom who sends her child to daycare because she’s mentally exhausted and needs the break? She probably isn’t sinning at all, but instead is doing a good thing by recognizing her limitations and seeking ways to remedy the situation before she drowns her babies in the bath tub.

We really need to knock off all this judgment and unrealistic expectation and face the reality of what it’s like to live in this world, here and now, today.

My very good friend had to go back to work when her child was old enough for pre-school. It was for her mental health. She has improved drastically since she did this. She only works part time but it’s enough for her to get out of the house and resume a somewhat more ‘normal’ life. I would say she is doing the opposite of sinning as she is combating her depression so she can be more present and more active for her child.
 
He said if it’s a migraine then it’s hnderstandable but the reason has to be grave for refusing
 
What about husbands? What if he’s just not interested but I am? Is he somehow sinning? Why is the focus on women? Why can’t someone just not be interested? Why must there be a ‘legitimate reason’ to say no to knocking boots???

I understand long-term refusal would be a problem but every now and then if a person is tired and just not interested I just have trouble seeing how that’s sinful.

On the one hand we’re taught over and again how self control is good… then in the context of marriage we’re supposed to just spread em whenever our spouse wants.

It’s so… odd.
 
Yes, I understand that. The key is that it is his understanding that leads him to that conclusion. Which is fine – as long as he’s not claiming his opinion is binding on all women. The danger is that he drifts from saying, “Hey, this is my opinion of how the world should work.” to “This is what the Church teaches and you are sinning if you disagree.”
 
Last edited:
I agree with this sentiment. I don’t understand why no one seems to think the husband is sinning for his selfishness by demanding sex against his wife’s clear wishes.
 
Last edited:
He said husbands that refuse are sinning too. He said what kind of man refuses his wife? And he blames feminism and pornography
 
My husband has a lesser sex drive than I do. Sometimes he’s not interested. Generally how we compromise is if he’s not interested one night, he’ll indulge me the next. But I love him, and I put him before me so I don’t push it, I don’t whine, I don’t demand… I just let it go if he isn’t interested and it’s honestly not the end of the world. It’s FAR more intimate and loving to respect each other’s boundaries and to have that self control to hold back when a spouse isn’t ‘into it’, for whatever reason, IMHO.

Again, long term refusal is one thing, but short term I just don’t feel like it tonight? I just can’t see how this should be on the refusing spouse.
 
He makes the argument that you shouldn’t have to be in the mood. That it’s the marital debt and refusing without grave reason is sinful
 
And I suppose in his experience, men and women can “perform” on demand? 😛
 
LOL! Right? If my husband tried when I wasn’t ready and/or feeling well he wouldn’t get very far (and I wouldn’t have to fight him for that to happen!) and if he wasn’t feeling it the same is true.
 
That argument is dumb. Full stop.

I’m sure he could cite venerated thinkers from the past who would support him, but honestly, whatever. Wise and holy they may have been, but they were still products of a culture. I think that attitude tells us a lot more about how men in general thought about sex in the Middle Ages than it tells us anything essential about Christian marriage.
 
I’m not arguing for him. Just posting what he said in the video.
 
I’ve said it before… you definitely get the whole “women should lay back, close their eyes, and think of England” vibe when it comes to some traditionalists and their expectations of Christian marital sex.
 
Just started listening to the talk linked and uuuuuugh.

I hate this mentality that everything is the fault of demons. True or not, I just dislike it. It’s almost like giving too much credit to Satan and not enough responsibility on us for our choices.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top