Daycare as grave matter

  • Thread starter Thread starter twf
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I read this article last week, IIRC.

We now live in a country where it is seen as abnormal, or even criminal, to allow children to be away from direct adult supervision, even for a second.
Click to expand...
Dr. Sarnecka once told me that children may not have the same rights as adults, but “they have some rights, and not just to safety. They have the right to some freedom, to some independence.” They have a right, she said, “to a little bit of danger.” And parents, I’d add, have the right to give it to them.
Click to expand...
If you are interested in the topic, I would say have a read. It is quite insightful how much the climate towards leaving children alone, or with other children, or just without direct supervision at all times can ignite such a heated debate.
 
twf said:
In fact this entire modern dynamic of working “outside the home” vs “stay at home parent” is a very modern development. Medieval Catholic peasants had no such distinctions. Sure, the man may have been more likely to till the fields and the woman more likely to churn butter, but they both worked AT and around the home, and that was the historic norm for most of Church history.
Click to expand...
Very much this. For many years the family tended to the family farm or business. And most people who worked lived at their work. There usually wasn’t a sharp distinction between the one who went out to work and the one who stayed home. There were also far fewer things bought premade - the labor of someone who made dinner from scratch and sewed clothes for the household and preserved food for the winter was necessary to survival.

I think also the idea that children of school age should be in school is newer and affects this. (Even with homeschooling, a child is expected to be focused on academics.) For much of history a woman was likely assisted by her older daughters or other young women in the community. Since the presumption was that said young women would grow up to be wives and mothers whose job was taking care of the home, this wasn’t a problem to have a 15 year old girl spend a significant part of the day minding children.
 
I have not read the priest’s, referred in the OP, remarks. Perhaps the wording was a little off, but in general it seems ok to me. I don’t understand the hostility to it. Seems like everyone on this thread agrees that it is a serious decision a couple takes as to whether a mother stays at home or puts small children in daycare. Seems to me that is the point. It would be gravely sinful to make such any major decision about our children’s upbringing without a serious reason. “Oh, we will both work, even when we have small children at home, so we can make our boat payment and keep our country club membership”… That would be very questionable from a moral standpoint IMO. “Oh, it’s important to us for our older children to be in a Catholic school, so we both have to work”… Seems like a serious/grave reason IMO. Or “we just can’t pay the mortgage and put food on the table”,. Seems quite reasonable.

The point is not that working mother’s should feel guilty in most cases, but that such a decision requires a serious reason. Why the hostility?
 
casslean said:
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.
Click to expand...
Thank you for this level headed reply. I agree with you.

People’s libido changes, especially with children, stress, illness and much more. As long as both partners are communicating, working on their marriage (which includes their intimacy) it shouldn’t be a deal at all, if either partner doesn’t want sex. No one is owed sex.

Intimacy in matrimony is giving oneself to the other. It is not demanding it from the other. So if a spouse says “I would like to give myself to you, to be with you”, and the other says “today is not the day, honey”—that’s okay.

I’m saddened that some think of intimacy as some sort of right, or obligation. I mean how romantic is that? 😭
 
Last edited:
You are correct but men do not choose celibacy in marriage and no they are not harmed by celibacy.

You are correct if those answers are heard frequently, there is a problem, that is exactly what I have been saying. That is exactly what Fr. Ripperger, is saying.
 
Last edited:
I think what people are objecting to is the idea that the serious reason is only something that’s necessary for survival, and that putting a child in daycare is necessarily “letting your kid be raised by strangers.” A lot of parents feel they can spend quality time with their child and still take the lead in raising them, without having to be with them all day every day up until age 5.
 
Did the priest say that? If so, yes it is objectionable. Certainly there can be grave reasons beyond matters of survival. But I question if that is what he said. Can someone provide a like to the priest’s remarks?
 
It’s wayyy up the thread in post #9. Daycare portion starts around 39:00 - 40:00 min. I forgot that he blamed mass murders (school shooting in particular) on daycare too.
 
It’s honestly an annoying video to work through. If people get that far, good on them!
 
Katie777 said:
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.
 
@MikeInVA

You might want to be careful making such definitive statements. My wife (a SAHM), while home with our children, decided that she wanted to return them to Jesus. She felt they’d be better in the “kingdom of heaven”. Yes - she wanted to kill them. While I quickly got sole custody, it goes to show that there are exceptions…

I’m frankly disgusted at some of the unilateral comments here about the inappropriateness of daycare. What might one suggest for a single mother, or a widow, or a single father like me? Daycare definitely has a place…
 
Last edited:
There are always exceptions. I don’t think I said that there aren’t.
 
MagdalenaRita said:
That is exactly what Fr. Ripperger, is saying.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Fr. Ripperger is placing the obligation on the refusing partner not to refuse (and truly, on the wife), and in doing so, lays the fault for lack of intimacy squarely at her feet. That is very different from pointing out that intimacy in a marriage depends on both partners and that both should be actively involved in maintaining and pursuing it.
 
I feel that some in the “traditionalist” community conflate traditional liturgy / spirituality with the secular culture of the 1950s. In this context, it seems to be a given that a man will always want / need sex, and its those pesky women who try to worm out of it…
 
What gets me is that somehow it seems like 5 years old has become the magic age. If you send them off to be cared for by strangers before 5 years old, it’s called daycare and it’s super evil. If it’s after 5 years old, it’s school and it’s perfectly normal.
 
Ok, I listened to from around 38 to a bit after 41. I have no problem with what he says. He even used my boat example. The part about day care and mass muderers, he specifically qualified it as a non-scientific study, just a commonality seen by a psychologist. He talks about unreasonable expectations of standards of living, it’s a big problem today. The part about a mother’s empathy being critical to kids at young ages, makes a lot of sense to me.

I think people are too sensitive to some moral issues. It’s not surprising this thread has been derailed by the issue of the marital debt. Some people, are overly sensitive to the fact that certain, very personal, difficult, and moral decisions they make could be gravely wrong in some circumstances. They are even offended at the thought of such a possibility.

No one, who misses mass due to illness on a Sunday gets offended that missing mass for no serious reason is a mortal sin. No one, who can’t fast on Ash Wednesday due to health reasons, gets offended that it is gravely wrong to do so without a very good reason. But anyone at times must reasonably tell their spouse no when an amorous advance is made, and they are overly sensitive to the fact that such a response is gravely wrong if it is unreasonable. I think this day care issue is similiar. It’s not an easy decision, so don’t tell me that if it’s not justified, it’s wrong.
 
I can’t go back and listen to the video right now but there is a spot where he does also comment that it is wrong for a man to refuse his wife and that it is becoming more frequent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top