Daycare as grave matter

  • Thread starter Thread starter twf
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Personally I wish my parents had of sent me to daycare and after schools clubs or even boarding school. My mother resented the fact that she had to stay at home to look after us. She had no desire to play, teach or read stories to her kids and didn’t really like children. So the only kids we saw were at school. Then at school we couldn’t relate to other children and this carried on into adulthood.
 
Fr. Ripperger also makes the point that, according to natural law, mothers have the right to stay home with their children. He talks about marriage being a contract, with justice required for both parties, and that mothers’ ability to stay home with the children is a form of justice.
 
I am sorry to hear that. In the past, especially in the last 50 years, women have been subtly encouraged to resent staying at home. Subtly in ways, such as being told, it is a worthless job or they are not using their brain, and other such comments.

I, too, when I first started staying home with my family was told, I wasn’t using my brain, and that I was just babysitting, when was I going to get out and get a real job. I didn’t listen but instead pressed on but some women struggled with what they heard.
 
Each person owes to the other. It is mutual.
 
Last edited:
I can’t imagine it would be sinful if it was for the purpose to survive financially and be able to pay the bills and rent etc.

At the same time,I do wonder if there is an over reliance in countries like US/Aus/U.K on formal daycare unlike in Europe where grandparents,or even neighbours etc will look after the children if necessary.
The European “system” seems to me better as it discourages an “individualistic” society mentality and there is also too much focus on red tape,rules and regulations in the countries that are more associated with formal daycare.

I think that countries governments,and the Catholic Church,should work to make the cost of living more affordable so that more women will not have to work from necessity.

Mothers who choose to just be mothers/housewives should be valued more too instead of people thinking they are often “bludgers” or low intelligence etc…
 
Last edited:
Rozellelily said:
At the same time,I do wonder if there is an over reliance in countries like US/Aus/U.K on formal daycare
Click to expand...
Where I grew up they would cancel school if it was too cold to go outside (-50F). Now they don’t close the schools because they are concerned that too many children would be left at home alone.
 
With all due respect it just sounds like some are insecure here and assume they’re somehow being judged. A lot of working mom here/those who want to be genuinely don’t care enough to judge SAHMs. they just want to be able to have the choice of working (either to make ends meet or to follow their passions) without Catholics/fundamentalist Christians scoffing and acting as if they’re not a good mother/woman for it, tbh.
 
No, it is not insecurity. I think we need to realize, just by this thread alone, that it works both ways. I could say this thread was started because of working moms feeling insecure.
Working moms can at times be made to feel guilty or insecure because they are not home with their kids and women who are home with their family may be made to feel insecure because they are not contributing to the work world, making enough money or using their brains.
I have heard and seen it from both sides of the coin.
I believe it is something each woman needs to pray about, asking God what is it He wants of her, always putting her husband and family before a career, and that doesn’t necessarily mean not working, and doing the best she can to be what God has called her to and that will also mean rejecting what society is telling her she needs to be.
 
You could reverse that and say rejecting your spouse because you don’t want it is disrespectful to their wants and needs.
 
The thread started because for some reason there’s someone who believe it’s a sin, tbh. So it’s not really the same. And the poster basically said she didn’t want to waste her unique gifts by not pursuing them, that’s totally fine for her.

Both sides hear a lot of nonsense from different people though. I agree with that. Ultimately we need to understand that every family has different needs and different people involved. There’s no one right way to raise a family.
 
Yes, In the other thread there were some comments about sending your child to day care as being a sin. I believe when women read that, even though I believe it was a misunderstanding of the person saying it, those who have their children in day care or elsewhere, became concerned, as would be expected. It was discussed in that thread and then continued to a new thread, so IMHO, I believe it is exactly the same.

I work part time and so have had my foot in both doors. I have heard it and know what it is like on both sides.
 
Last edited:
MagdalenaRita said:
You could reverse that and say rejecting your spouse because you don’t want it is disrespectful to their wants and needs.
Click to expand...
Are you serious? That feels like an argument a teenage boy would make. Sex is not a need, it is a want. No one ever died or suffered from going without sex.

Forcing someone to submit to sex when they do not want to is antithetical to one of the purpose of sex within a marriage, which is the good of the spouses.

From the Catechism, CC 2365
St. John Chrysostom suggests that young husbands should say to their wives: I have taken you in my arms, and I love you, and I prefer you to my life itself. For the present life is nothing, and my most ardent dream is to spend it with you in such a way that we may be assured of not being separated in the life reserved for us… I place your love above all things, and nothing would be more bitter or painful to me than to be of a different mind than you.
Click to expand...
 
Understood that you have strong views on childcare, but if you don’t mind me asking…what are they based on? I ask because they’re so different than what we’ve experiences, specifically the “lack of stimulation” and calling it an “institution”?

Just yesterday my youngest didn’t want to leave because they were dancing around and singing along with nursery rhymes (one of his favorite things to do).
 
I guess I could say, are you serious? For men, it is a need, a physical, sexual need. Not one to sustain life. Yes there are times you can say no to your spouse but, saying yes, shows love to your spouse. That is what marriage is all about.
 
Last edited:
MagdalenaRita said:
I guess I could say, are you serious? For men, it is a need, a physical need.
Click to expand...
Then how do our priests remain celibate?

This is an antiquated notion and has no place in a marriage.
MagdalenaRita said:
Yes there are times you can say no but, saying yes, shows love to your spouse. That is what it is all about.
Click to expand...
Saying yes is an expression of love. Expecting that your spouse can never say no or refusing to accept a no when it is given, is not an expression of love. It is an expression of self-centeredness.
 
Priests take a vow of chastity. It means they choose to say no to that need by giving themselves in service to God through the priesthood. That is different.

It is not antiquated idea. This is a physical, sexual need. It is biology. The medical field can explain how men have this as a physical, psychological, sexual need and it doesn’t go away just because they become elderly. It can have a great impact on a man’s self worth. It is not a physical need as one to sustain life.

Also, I did not say that either spouse could never say no but it is wrong to make that a frequent response and/or one with out a good reason.

In order to be open to life you have to open to each other. It isn’t just about the physical act but giving ourselves to each other in love.
 
Last edited:
MagdalenaRita said:
Priests take a vow of chastity. It means they choose to say no to that need by giving themselves in service to God through the priesthood. That is different.

It is not antiquated idea. This is a physical need. Look at what is going on through the internet. Medical doctors can explain how men have this as a physical need and it doesn’t go away just because they become elderly.

I didn’t say they either spouse could never say no but it is wrong to make that a frequent response and/or one with out a good reason.

In order to be open to life you have to open to each other. It isn’t just about the physical act but giving ourselves to each other in love.
Click to expand...
If it is a need, you can’t choose to give it up indefinitely without suffering harm. For instance, we need food, water, adequate shelter.

You are confusing need with desire. Men do not need sex. They will not be harmed in the slightest by celibacy.

Further, “I don’t want to” is a perfectly good response when we are discussing sex. “I have a headache,” “I’m tired,” “I don’t feel well” - all perfectly good answers. If the answers are being heard frequently, it is a sign that the parties need to examine their marriage and determine why one partner has lost interest and together work to fix whatever issues might have arisen.
 
Maybe it would lead the discussion in a different direction if the priest, Fr. Ripperger, had said that it is wrong for a father to send his children to day care. Because I am pretty sure that Fr. Ripperger states that the man is the head of the household.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top