Part time stay at home Dad

[MiserereMei25]

No. It came up because I know it’s usually frowned upon.

 

[MiserereMei25]

Are you married and/or have children, or what is your vocation?

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

Xanthippe_Voorhees:

The Pope spoke about a time and a place.

Yes, this is basically the exact same argument used by every dissenter ever.

But it’s not incorrect. Just a century before the world was barely industrialized a few centuries before. There were no reliable global communications in 1831. The “New World” was still a huge and strange thing. It was a huge mind trip and a cultural shift. Perhaps it would be better for you to respond with why the changes that were starting to cement in 1931 are similar to today.

In many ways things in 1931 are incredibly different in the Western world for children. In 1931 you were still reeling horrible disasters regarding child labor. Keeping woman home to care for children was important in creating a safe environment for children to grow. Context is vital.

 

[Arkansan]

opinions of popes and saints all day long, but if it’s not an official Church teaching

“Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me”; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine.” - Humani Generis #20

 

[Arkansan]

Arkansan:

Xanthippe_Voorhees:

The Pope spoke about a time and a place.

Yes, this is basically the exact same argument used by every dissenter ever.

But it’s not incorrect. Just a century before the world was barely industrialized a few centuries before. There were no reliable global communications in 1831. The “New World” was still a huge and strange thing. It was a huge mind trip and a cultural shift. Perhaps it would be better for you to respond with why the changes that were starting to cement in 1931 are similar to today.

In many ways things in 1931 are incredibly different in the Western world for children. In 1931 you were still reeling horrible disasters regarding child labor. Keeping woman home to care for children was important in creating a safe environment for children to grow. Context is vital.

You seem to be missing the point. I get that economic structures today are different than in 1931. That only speaks to the moral quality of the economic structures in question. What is right and wrong in this doesn’t depend on economics, but on human nature, which does not change.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

“Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me”; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine.” - Humani Generis #20

How is that any different than what @LumineDiei said? Even if they are done in love they still aren’t official church teaching.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

Xanthippe_Voorhees:

Arkansan:

Xanthippe_Voorhees:

The Pope spoke about a time and a place.

Yes, this is basically the exact same argument used by every dissenter ever.

But it’s not incorrect. Just a century before the world was barely industrialized a few centuries before. There were no reliable global communications in 1831. The “New World” was still a huge and strange thing. It was a huge mind trip and a cultural shift. Perhaps it would be better for you to respond with why the changes that were starting to cement in 1931 are similar to today.

In many ways things in 1931 are incredibly different in the Western world for children. In 1931 you were still reeling horrible disasters regarding child labor. Keeping woman home to care for children was important in creating a safe environment for children to grow. Context is vital.

You seem to be missing the point. I get that economic structures today are different than in 1931. That only speaks to the moral quality of the economic structures in question. What is right and wrong in this doesn’t depend on economics, but on human nature, which does not change.

I’m not missing the point. Pius was speaking about an economic situation facing men, women and children in 1931. The best answer at the time was that women stay home to protect children while men earned money for the family. It is speaking to an economic situation, not to the nature of womanhood. Else it would seemingly go against the bibilical Proverbs 31 woman.

 

[ewohdrol]

What is right and wrong in this doesn’t depend on economics, but on human nature, which does not change.

But that is not true is it. Of course human nature changes somewhat. Humans are very adaptable when they need to meet their needs.

If the husband has a job which can adequately support his family it’s great. But since you have pointed out the econimc structures as immoral can you provide a practical solution for families to meet your very specific ideal situation?

 

[Arkansan]

If the husband has a job which can adequately support his family it’s great. But since you have pointed out the econimc structures as immoral can you provide a practical solution for families to meet your very specific ideal situation?

No, I fully acknowledge that that is practically impossible for many people today. But if it can be done, then it should be.

 

[MiserereMei25]

I find it odd you couldn’t answer my question. I assume your not married, have kids, or are not currently living actively in another vocation?

 

[MiserereMei25]

But its still not preferable, right? Though God may want that for some families given their situation.

 

[Arkansan]

Mothers working outside the home is not preferable, correct.

I’m currently single. I usually don’t answer questions about myself when my life is not relevant to the topic of conservation.

 

[MiserereMei25]

Then you have noooooo idea about family life other than being a son/daughter yourself. Thank you.

 

[semper_catholicus]

You know we need to add in that Ad Hominem.

 

[Arkansan]

That sort of fallacy is precisely why my general practice is what it is.

 

[MiserereMei25]

I wonder if you would look at things a tad differently if you were married with children or were a priest that counseled married couples in 2018.
I guess my conclusion here is, if our Catechism does not have anything to say regarding the matter, I should just live my life according to how I think the Holy Spirit my be guiding me regarding the matter and not feel ashamed of it.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

Mothers working outside the home is not preferable, correct.

I’m currently single. I usually don’t answer questions about myself when my life is not relevant to the topic of conservation.

But again, working inside the home was faaaaaar different in 1931. Appliances were few and far between. Cooking was a herculean task.

Being single, you are at a disadvantage. Being a child in a big family doesn’t give you an understanding of how family life works.

In all reality, a woman who’s an accountant, lawyer, educator, etc may be acting more in line with the dignity of a woman. A man who’s tossing in a load of laundry, fixing the minivan, driving the kids from one end of town to the other may be more to male dignity. The very nature of work has changed even if that of gendered humans has not.

 

[TechieGuy]

I guess my conclusion here is, if our Catechism does not have anything to say regarding the matter, I should just live my life according to how I think the Holy Spirit my be guiding me regarding the matter and not feel ashamed of it.

Gosh, how I wish more people here at CA would take this approach to their lives!

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

Over the years I’ve read replies that pretty much indicate as long as you can get food stamps, money from family members, you aren’t living in a car down by the river, or your wife hasn’t attempted to drown the kids, she better not set foot outside the home and you better be gone the better part of 16 hours, working to support her. Of course, I’ve yet to hear that from a married man that has children…

I’ve also found this to be true. Thankfully, those who seem to believe this, if they ever do get married (which is rare) change their tune pretty quickly. They realize that fatherhood is way more than a paycheck and a roof.

 

[frumacat]

Of course its not morally wrong. You and your wife know what the best decision is to provide for your child, and that’s what you’re doing–taking care of your child. Ignore anyone who suggests otherwise.

Congratulations on your newborn!