Insight into the Key to Weakening the Chains of Lust in our Society

[UbiCaritas]

Exactly. I keep seeing that it’s “western society’s obsession with comfort” and the like as excuses as to why people don’t have kids. My experience is that yes that is sometimes true. But often times it really is the fact that the finances of 2016 don’t work the same way that the finances of 1956 did. And furthermore I’d argue that it’s a very privileged western view that doesn’t see the dark side that the financial burdens in particular of children can have on a family. It’s not just about comfort, it’s about necessities for survival. And when you don’t have necessities or struggle for them, it’s much harder to have a happy or loving home.

I mean my own parents struggled a lot more compared to their parents (who were both stereotypical 50’s/60’s families with several kids, mom at home, etc…) and as a result my father was largely absent for the first 10 years of my life working to provide for his family with my mom as home maker. Now a generation later, to maintain a much simpler and more frugal lifestyle than my dad provided alone, my wife and I are both having to work full time. It would be even worse if we weren’t blessed with my wife being able to do about 90% of her job from home. I fear for what my daughter will face in another 25+ years when it comes time for her to raise a family if she chooses to do so.

The urban exodus ties into this somewhat, too, as well as a dearth of blue-collar jobs that pay enough to support a family.

When my dad was growing up in the 50s, his parents both worked, and he was an only child. (Grandma had a lot of fertility issues despite being married rather young.) They lived in a city, and used public transport; I’m not sure when they got their first car, but not for a long time. This wasn’t really a hardship, though, as they lived within easy walking distance of church, various stores, and so forth, and could use the train and bus system to get to their respective very blue-collar jobs, visit relatives (those who weren’t within walking distance, and several were), and go to any other stores they might need.

Granddad worked in a cardboard factory, shoveling pulp paper into the compressor, and Grandma was a seamstress. Like I said, very blue-collar. However, they could afford on their respective earnings to buy a small-but-nice duplex, have Great-grandma live in one half of it (and support her to a certain extent), never have their kid go hungry, and never worry about the utilities being turned off.

Dad received an excellent and free education, courtesy of their parish school, where he could also stay late in an after-care program if his parents worked late and he didn’t go to an aunt’s house for the afternoon. (Several aunts, uncles, and cousins lived close enough that he could walk to their houses.) ETA: also, back then he could stay at home alone for a few hours once he was 7 or 8…not an option today.

The neighborhood certainly wasn’t ritzy, but it also was perfectly safe; Grandma used to park Dad in the front yard in his high chair or playpen with only the family dog to babysit while she did housework.

Should someone need childcare/practical assistance with recovering from a medical problem/what-have-you, there were always relatives to step in. Those relatives were nearby in part because they hadn’t had to leave the area to find a job, as many who grow up in the Midwest, or, say, Florida or California, often do now. They were blue-collar workers, most of them working in manufacturing (very few of those jobs left in the US now), service industries (think telephone company support…see above about how many of those jobs are left in the US), and so forth, but they could afford decent houses in decent areas in which to raise kids, usually on one paycheck. Most went to work right after 8th grade; Dad was actually the first person in his family to graduate high school, much less college.

It wasn’t quite as idealistic as it all sounds for a number of reasons (Granddad was a violent alcoholic), but it does speak to a time when society was set up to make things easier on families than it is now.

 

[heidi_storage]

It may be a nasty comment, but in my experience it’s far too often a true comment. Not obviously applicable to everyone,

But this isn’t what you said. You stated, essentially, that big family=misery and poverty. OF COURSE this can be true–as I said–but it is far from a given, and wholesale slamming of big families in such a fashion is neither kind nor accurate.

 

[heidi_storage]

Very true. I grew up in a home where the electricity was not always on and my parents worried about being able to keep a roof over our heads. Poverty puts an enormous strain on people, especially parents. I don’t know how my mom and stepfather made it through with me, and they definitely couldn’t have managed six.

Your experience is real, and undergone by many other families. But it does not make Padres1969’s blanket “big family=poor and miserable” statement true.

 

[Padres1969]

But this isn’t what you said. You stated, essentially, that big family=misery and poverty. OF COURSE this can be true–as I said–but it is far from a given, and wholesale slamming of big families in such a fashion is neither kind nor accurate.

And I clarified in a subsequent post. No need to belabor the issue. My post was a tad reactionary I admit, but to be honest I was shocked by the naivety of the OP’s statement that somehow big families will make everything better with society.

 

[AdamP88]

And I clarified in a subsequent post. No need to belabor the issue. My post was a tad reactionary I admit, but to be honest I was shocked by the naivety of the OP’s statement that somehow big families will make everything better with society.

They mightn’t make everything better with society. But it’d certainly be a start. Family is the basic unit of society and more support of people with large families on a local, regional, governmental, and international level would certainly go a long way toward fixing the things that are wrong with society.

Less of the negative attitude toward stay-at-home moms, scorn of women who actually want more children (how dare they, the self-loathing misogynists), would certainly be a good start.

 

[Padres1969]

They mightn’t make everything better with society. But it’d certainly be a start. Family is the basic unit of society and more support of people with large families on a local, regional, governmental, and international level would certainly go a long way toward fixing the things that are wrong with society.

Less of the negative attitude toward stay-at-home moms, scorn of women who actually want more children (how dare they, the self-loathing misogynists), would certainly be a good start.

Could also go a long way to making things worse.

 

[AdamP88]

Could also go a long way to making things worse.

Elaborate please, if you would?

 

[Padres1969]

Could also go a long way to making things worse.

Large families, depending of course on what you define as large (much beyond the population replacement number I would consider large) has the potential to put added strain on our already struggling planet. And that strain is felt at the environmental level, the governmental level, and indeed the societal level. Never mind the a fore mentioned financial strain that larger families can oft times incur.

That said, smaller families does not equal scorn for stay at home moms or women who want more children

 

[AdamP88]

Large families, depending of course on what you define as large (much beyond the population replacement number I would consider large) has the potential to put added strain on our already struggling planet. And that strain is felt at the environmental level, the governmental level, and indeed the societal level. Never mind the a fore mentioned financial strain that larger families can oft times incur.

That said, smaller families does not equal scorn for stay at home moms or women who want more children

Most western nations are either just at or under replacement level. I don’t really buy the whole overpopulation and “struggling planet” narrative to be honest. People have been predicting that environmental doom is just a few years away for decades now. It still hasn’t happened.

I’m not saying that small families = scorn. But there is an attitude, propagated by the mindset that says, “more than two is too many”, that views women in the home as useless.

I think the financial strain of children on the family is overstated. Yes there are families that can’t afford more children, but as I said, most western families would easily be able to afford one more child.

 

[RPRPsych]

Most western nations are either just at or under replacement level. I don’t really buy the whole overpopulation and “struggling planet” narrative to be honest. People have been predicting that environmental doom is just a few years away for decades now. It still hasn’t happened.

I’m not saying that small families = scorn. But there is an attitude, propagated by the mindset that says, “more than two is too many”, that views women in the home as useless.

I think the financial strain of children on the family is overstated. Yes there are families that can’t afford more children, but as I said, most western families would easily be able to afford one more child.

 

[Sarcelle]

Your experience is real, and undergone by many other families. But it does not make Padres1969’s blanket “big family=poor and miserable” statement true.

The same thing goes for big family = happy and holy people.

It can but not always.

We see the building but not the foundation it is built on and yet the foundation is the most important thing. It starts with the married couple and their will and determination to pursue holiness in accordance with their vocation of marriage. This includes being open to life. If God blesses them with a large or small brood so be it. Holiness does not automatically come with a larger number of children. It can lead to that but not necessarily.

A couple who is open to life and in spite of that are childless or have a few number of children are no less holy than a couple with a dozen children.

 

[pensmama87]

The same thing goes for big family = happy and holy people.

It can but not always.

We see the building but not the foundation it is built on and yet the foundation is the most important thing. It starts with the married couple and their will and determination to pursue holiness in accordance with their vocation of marriage. This includes being open to life. If God blesses them with a large or small brood so be it. Holiness does not automatically come with a larger number of children. It can lead to that but not necessarily.

A couple who is open to life and in spite of that are childless or have a few number of children are no less holy than a couple with a dozen children.

Yes, this is the most important thing.

It’s not big families per se. It’s men and women who are seriously committed to their vocations and willing to make sacrifices. That would probably increase the fertility rate overall (though individual families will be all over the place, of course), but saying by itself that it’s big families is a bit of putting the cart before the horse, I think.

 

[Lucretius]

Sorry, I tend to write cryptically at times. What I meant was that while your idea is a good one (if a bit simplistic), such decisions have to be taken by couples jointly. In these days where both men and women are influenced by materialism and the “contraceptive mentality”, that is not always a given.

Think of it as like Nancy Reagan’s anti-drug slogan (Just say no). Obviously, it is not so simple to just say no, but all the help and effort are completely wasted unless you have the foundation of, well, just saying no to drugs. In the same way, if we just work towards enjoying bigger and more virtuous families, the temptation to perversions will be less tempting, and people will more easily see the rationality of natural marriage. This Key is the foundation we should build our counteraction against Satan on, rather then natural law arguments that most people can’t see the truth of because they don’t want to.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[RPRPsych]

Think of it as like Nancy Reagan’s anti-drug slogan (Just say no). Obviously, it is not so simple to just say no, but all the help and effort are completely wasted unless you have the foundation of, well, just saying no to drugs. In the same way, if we just work towards enjoying bigger and more virtuous families, the temptation to perversions will be less tempting, and people will more easily see the rationality of natural marriage. This Key is the foundation we should build our counteraction against Satan on, rather then natural law arguments that most people can’t see the truth of because they don’t want to.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

Okay, I get it.