Is the Preference for Sons Anti-Catholic?

[AngryAtheist8]

The growing shortage of women and girls in Asia is motivated by a very strong (traditional) preference for sons combined with new medical technology and access to abortion (link to news article on the subject: economist.com/node/15606229).

Obviously aborting future women is itself against Catholic theology, but what about the ideas and feelings behind it?

Longing for a son (rather than a daughter) seems to be a theme in the Old Testament, and its pretty clear that the ancient Israelis valued men much more highly than women. Probably the best example of this in modern Jewish society is the traditional Jewish prayer for men where a man thanks God for not making him a woman (there is no similar prayer for women where a woman thanks God for not making her a man)(link to source: jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/birkhot_hashahar.html).

Talking to Catholics has led me to believe that neglecting, abusing, or rejecting children simply because there female would be wrong according to Catholicism, but what about just valuing boys more?

The desire to have sons to serve as a man’s heirs and carry on his name is a common theme throughout Christian history. Whereas a similar longing for daughters seems noticably absent.

So it what extent does the Catholic Church approve of (or at least permit) this kind of feeling/historical trend?

 

[JimG]

I don’t really think that the Church has any teachings within its moral theology which would find preferences and feelings sinful one way or another. An uncle of mine had five daughters, another uncle–his brother–had five sons. Perhaps the one was hoping for a son next time and the other was hoping for a daughter. Such feelings are normal, but one in the end has to accept God’s will.

It would be seriously wrong, of course, to take immoral actions–such as aborting girls, or using IVF to get the “right” sex.

China’s misguided “one child” policy has led to more abortions of girls and to serious demographic imbalance. That’s a case where government policy works to enable immoral action.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I don’t really think that the Church has any teachings within its moral theology which would find preferences and feelings sinful one way or another. An uncle of mine had five daughters, another uncle–his brother–had five sons. Perhaps the one was hoping for a son next time and the other was hoping for a daughter. Such feelings are normal, but one in the end has to accept God’s will.

It would be seriously wrong, of course, to take immoral actions–such as aborting girls, or using IVF to get the “right” sex.

China’s misguided “one child” policy has led to more abortions of girls and to serious demographic imbalance. That’s a case where government policy works to enable immoral action.

What are you saying exactly

That the Church doesn’t mind if everyone (just) wants sons, as long as they don’t interfere with nature (through contraception, abortion, etc.) and treat any daughters they end up having well?

Moreover, they idea that the Church would not judge people based on their feelings is dubious at best. The Catholic Church is more than happy to judge people for feeling things such as Lust, Envy, or Greed.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Certainly considering girls to be of less intrinsic human value than boys would be against Catholic principles.

However, sons really are different than daughters, so it’s not surprising if expecting parents find themselves, even in spite of themselves, in some way hoping for one or the other (all the more if they already have one or more children of the other sex).

Also in some cultures, including to some degree still our own (last names), a son is an heir to the family in which he is born in a way a daughter is not. He continues the family heritage. I think this largely accounts for the desire specifically for sons in the Old Testament, for example.

 

[EnglishTeacher]

Probably the best example of this in modern Jewish society is the traditional Jewish prayer for men where a man thanks God for not making him a woman (there is no similar prayer for women where a woman thanks God for not making her a man)(link to source: jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/birkhot_hashahar.html).

Ha - this is a very sensible prayer, and I wouldn’t jump to the conclusion that it is prayed out of a sense of male superiority. Maybe the men pray it because they realize that they should be thankful that they don’t have to go through all the things that women go through.

But more seriously, no, Catholicism does not have the attitude that sons are better than daughters, and I’m not sure why you would think that, especially when our greatest and most venerated saint is a woman. Men and women are both equal before God, although they may have different roles in life.

 

[damian_clarke]

Well they say it takes a real man to father a man

But a gentleman to father a lady.

Give me ballet lessons and barbie dolls any day.

 

[kch86]

Longing for a son (rather than a daughter) seems to be a theme in the Old Testament, and its pretty clear that the ancient Israelis valued men much more highly than women. Probably the best example of this in modern Jewish society is the traditional Jewish prayer for men where a man thanks God for not making him a woman (there is no similar prayer for women where a woman thanks God for not making her a man)(link to source: jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/birkhot_hashahar.html).

Sons were traditionally seen as more desirable for various reasons. In agrarian societies, men were a source of economic security because of their physical strength and their ability to work in the fields, or to work as labourers in the building trade, etc. Because of this, men were simply more valuable economically and so more likely to secure a family’s future, but in the eyes of God, both men and women are and always have been of equal value as human beings.

With the advancement of civilisation, in the modern economy, masculine characteristics such as physical strength no longer have such importance except in specific industries. Instead, characteristics that women and men both tend to possess have become valuable, and so we see women coming into their own. As women have become valuable participants in the modern economy, so too do we see traditional attitudes with regard to their value changing.

But in truth, God was there first, and society is only catching up with how He saw things all along.

It is not sinful to wish for a boy or a girl. Indeed, in the past, there were good reasons for why a boy might have been preferred. Nowadays, parents may want one or the other for various arbitrary reasons, but they are called to give all their love to whichever one God chooses for them.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Sons were traditionally seen as more desirable for various reasons. In agrarian societies, men were a source of economic security because of their physical strength and their ability to work in the fields, or to work as labourers in the building trade, etc. Because of this, men were simply more valuable economically and so more likely to secure a family’s future, but in the eyes of God, both men and women are and always have been of equal value as human beings.

With the advancement of civilisation, in the modern economy, masculine characteristics such as physical strength no longer have such importance except in specific industries. Instead, characteristics that women and men both tend to possess have become valuable, and so we see women coming into their own. As women have become valuable participants in the modern economy, so too do we see traditional attitudes with regard to their value changing.

But in truth, God was there first, and society is only catching up with how He saw things all along.

That isn’t really true.

Women worked as much as men through the ages. It was only with the, as you put it “the advancement of civilisation” that it was seen as an ideal for women to be unemployed by the Victorian era middle-classes.

 

[kch86]

That isn’t really true.

Women worked as much as men through the ages. It was only with the, as you put it “the advancement of civilisation” that it was seen as an ideal for women to be unemployed by the Victorian era middle-classes.

I’m sure women worked just as much, if not more or harder, but there was a premium placed on the work that men could do and women couldn’t.

I think women being unemployed is neither here nor there. If that ideal were to return and that’s what people wanted, that’s fine by me. My point was that the economy has changed and specifically male characteristics are no longer as valuable economically and that women can now do the jobs men do because, to an extent, these jobs have changed. Whether or not they want to is none of my concern.

 

[Cristiano]

What are you saying exactly

That the Church doesn’t mind if everyone (just) wants sons, as long as they don’t interfere with nature (through contraception, abortion, etc.) and treat any daughters they end up having well?

Moreover, they idea that the Church would not judge people based on their feelings is dubious at best. The Catholic Church is more than happy to judge people for feeling things such as Lust, Envy, or Greed.

Lust, envy and greed are not feelings. They are the results of indulging in thoughts. Feelings are involuntary, indulging on them becomes a voluntary action. With voluntary actions we can also predispose ourselves to trigger specific feelings.

 

[LemonAndLime]

I’m sure women worked just as much, if not more or harder, but there was a premium placed on the work that men could do and women couldn’t.

I don’t think its as simple as that. Men were valued more than for being pack horses. They had more social mobility, carried on the family name and were expected to be leaders.

Basically - in a world of men, being a man was considered quite a plus.

 

[kch86]

I don’t think its as simple as that. Men were valued more than for being pack horses. They had more social mobility, carried on the family name and were expected to be leaders.

Basically - in a world of men, being a man was considered quite a plus.

Oh, of course it wasn’t as simple as that. And as for the points you made, I think in the case of a single nomadic family living in a yurt in the middle of Mongolia, being a packhorse might have been the dominant factor. In other cases it might have been aggression and ability to defend. Leadership and assertiveness are psychological traits naturally shared by both men and women, but exhibited more commonly by men, so that too, though there were prominent female figures in the Old Testament too. It is easy to think of reasons why males might have been preferred when society was in its infant stages. But I do think that brute force had a lot to do with it. And as civilisation progressed, I imagine that a cultural preference for males remained even when it was no longer justified by natural reasons.

My essential point was that it wasn’t unreasonable for males to be preferred in the past. At first those may have been simple reasons related to the physical and psychological traits present or naturally occurring with greater frequency in men, and then this preference was reinforced by culture, where certain social positions may have only been open to men and so it would have been preferable to have a son so that he could fill that social position, etc. I don’t think the whole edifice was built with a view to harm women, however, though that may at times have been the result. It doesn’t seem right to me, but I’m so far-removed from the realities back then that but I’m trying and finding it hard not to impose my own cultural prejudices onto the past.

I don’t know what women themselves might have thought about how the world worked back then - whether they were happy they didn’t have to do what men did or whether they wanted to but couldn’t. But whatever the reasons for the world of men, as you said, having a son would have certainly been considered a plus.

 

[Richard320]

No, not any more than preferring beige carpet over blue. Unless one starts messing around with IVF, sex-selection abortion, and all the other evils we have today.

The wedding vows explicitly ask: “Will you accept children lovingly from God, and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?” Not accept sons. Not accept daughters. Children. So one may wish for a son, but to kill off daughters whether by IVF techniques or abortion in order to have a son is anti-Catholic.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Oh, of course it wasn’t as simple as that. And as for the points you made, I think in the case of a single nomadic family living in a yurt in the middle of Mongolia, being a packhorse might have been the dominant factor. In other cases it might have been aggression and ability to defend. Leadership and assertiveness are psychological traits naturally shared by both men and women, but exhibited more commonly by men, so that too, though there were prominent female figures in the Old Testament too. It is easy to think of reasons why males might have been preferred when society was in its infant stages. But I do think that brute force had a lot to do with it. And as civilisation progressed, I imagine that a cultural preference for males remained even when it was no longer justified by natural reasons.

My essential point was that it wasn’t unreasonable for males to be preferred in the past. At first those may have been simple reasons related to the physical and psychological traits present or naturally occurring with greater frequency in men, and then this preference was reinforced by culture, where certain social positions may have only been open to men and so it would have been preferable to have a son so that he could fill that social position, etc. I don’t think the whole edifice was built with a view to harm women, however, though that may at times have been the result. It doesn’t seem right to me, but I’m so far-removed from the realities back then that but I’m trying and finding it hard not to impose my own cultural prejudices onto the past.

I don’t know what women themselves might have thought about how the world worked back then - whether they were happy they didn’t have to do what men did or whether they wanted to but couldn’t. But whatever the reasons for the world of men, as you said, having a son would have certainly been considered a plus.

Perhaps not.
But slavery could have been considered a relatively reasonable option in the past too.

The question is, are such culture biases in line with Catholic teaching, especially if they often lead to girls being neglected, abused, or (as is the case today) aborted on a wide scale?

 

[Cristiano]

…The question is, are such culture biases in line with Catholic teaching, especially if they often lead to girls being neglected, abused, or (as is the case today) aborted on a wide scale?

The answer is no! There is not Catholic teaching that puts men ahead of women, it is a Catholic teaching that men and women are created with equal dignity and that we should love people for whom they are and not for what the can do. The Church also teaches that any thinking that brings neglect, abuse or abortion is immoral thus sinful.
You must be aware that the Church does not say anything about liking people but She is very clear about loving them. I might completely dislike someone but I still have to love them and thus respect their human dignity.

 

[kch86]

Perhaps not.
But slavery could have been considered a relatively reasonable option in the past too.

The question is, are such culture biases in line with Catholic teaching, especially if they often lead to girls being neglected, abused, or (as is the case today) aborted on a wide scale?

Well, it depends on the cultural bias. If a parent should desire a child of one sex or the other, there is nothing inherently wrong with that, but he or she has got to love what’s given. Desiring somehow to harm a child that is not according to a parent’s preference, be it for eye colour, hair colour, or indeed sex, is absolutely and outrageously wrong.

As for other manifestations of cultural bias, where women may be unjustly denied certain rights, I would argue that such a thing would be a denial of the fundamental equality of men and women in the eyes of God.

Catholicism, however, requires the recognition of certain differences between men and women. Now in secular matters, this isn’t a big issue, and for the most part, we’re in agreement with secularists, because the differences really aren’t that great and there’s a great deal of overlap, and there are very few situations in which one might find just reasons for differential treatment.

I assume, however, that a Catholic could reasonably argue that for prudent reasons women might not be permitted from serving on the front line as soldiers, for example, though I personally see no reason as to why they shouldn’t, provided they do not act as an impediment in any way and such a thing wouldn’t put them in significantly more danger. I believe a secularist could also quite reasonably argue either way in this situation.

Where Catholics and secularists tend to disagree is about religious issues, namely, the ordination of women. Now, that is quite difficult to reconcile because a secularist is not religious and may find the Catholic perspective difficult to understand, or, quite simply, unacceptable. We can only point to the female saints who have great authority in the Church as an example of the fact that while we believe that the roles of men and women should be different, particularly in matters of religion, that is not a denial of influence or of the inherent value of women as human beings.

As for the fear that this division of roles within the Church could somehow reinforce an attitude of prejudice towards women, I do think that it is unfounded, and especially so in Catholicism, where women have had such a great role to play in the Church and have done so without ordination, and where Mary is considered to be the most perfect human being ever to have existed.

 

[JimG]

What are you saying exactly

That the Church doesn’t mind if everyone (just) wants sons, as long as they don’t interfere with nature (through contraception, abortion, etc.) and treat any daughters they end up having well?

Moreover, they idea that the Church would not judge people based on their feelings is dubious at best. The Catholic Church is more than happy to judge people for feeling things such as Lust, Envy, or Greed.

Feelings are just feelings. They are morally neutral. The deliberate cultivation of lust, envy, or greed, and taking pleasure in them would be sinful, but that involves more than feelings; it also involves the will, and concrete action.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Feelings are just feelings. They are morally neutral. The deliberate cultivation of lust, envy, or greed, and taking pleasure in them would be sinful, but that involves more than feelings; it also involves the will, and concrete action.

Lust, Greed, etc. don’t need to be cultivated.
As the Catholic Church is usually all too willing to say, they are feelings human beings experience naturally (and normally) as a result of our Fallen nature.