The Protestant taint in American Catholicism that nobody is talking about

[zab]

You’re completely misunderstanding my post. There’s no need to defend America’s economic system as I’m not attacking it. I’m not knowledgeable enough to try to criticize an economic system.

I’m just pointing out that it’s unfair to be upset as a Catholic at a struggling Catholic family with many children because they “shouldn’t have had so many kids.” They are, after all, morally bound to only use nfp or abstinence to prevent pregnancy; and a young couple trying to remain chaste are likely not going to abstain (I refer again to 1 Corinthians 7:9). And nfp is more difficult for some than for others and has equally differing levels of success for each couple.

I think no one knows better than those who put God first but have little, just how much God has blessed their lives and provided for all their needs. But people will be rude and even some well meaning people will asked stupid questions that are sensitive to parents of large families. I think we mothers are probably more sensitive to comments particularly when go through another pregnancy. “How many more are you going to have?” “Do you know what causes that ? (pregnancy)” “Glad it you and not me! hahaha” etc. This is a mother’s path to holiness, and part of that path is learning how to handle and grow from such experiences. Everybody has their own daily struggles and their own cross to carry.

 

[LongingSoul]

This is not really responding to what I am saying, which is that the attitude of families’ needing to “discern” if they are “called” to a certain size of family–because discerning if they are called to a large one will end up meaning that they discern a number or size they are called to–doesn’t work as an idea because it’s inconsistent. Suppose they discern a call to a small family and God keeps sending them more?

I’m not saying there’s some ideal that everyone should aspire to, iust that the idea that families should “discern” this is not only illogical, but could lead to an expansion of thr problem the OP is talking about: Obviously they were called to have only a small fsmily since God did not send the financial resources for a large family, so they should not have had so many children.

I think that you might be confusing the word discerning with determining. Discerning is an ongoing evaluation of a situation taking in a lot of factors that might lead to a determination or decision. For instance, I always wanted to have a large family when I got married. Due to a number of factors that I couldn’t have foreseen prior to having children, I decided to finish my family after number 4 (3 living) and practice periodic abstinence to avoid pregnancy. Discerning comes not from an ideological desire, but an evaluation of your capacities and situation most conducive to the wellbeing of your family and each of the children.

 

[Xantippe]

One thing I have come to believe very strongly in is the importance of giving young adults a running start at independent life. Because college or other training is so expensive, it’s hard to see past just getting through it and getting a job, but ideally, the single young adult should be aggressively paying off debt and saving.

As it is today, it often takes a very long time to launch adult children. One of the factors that may enter into family size is the very long dependence of contemporary young adults. From everything I’ve heard from parents of 20-somethings today, it is very hard to launch young adults–they are often financially dependent on parents well into their 20s, even if they’ve gotten a good degree from a good college.

 

[Xantippe]

With regard to discernment of family size, one thing that has been bugging me on CAF is overconfidence that a particular family will be able to homeschool successfully.

On CAF, we often see exchanges that look like this:

A: We need to have a smaller family because the public schools aren’t good and private school is expensive.

B: Why don’t you have more children and homeschool?

I saw that particular exchange (or one very like it) quite a number of times on CAF before it finally dawned on me what the problem is with it. Here’s the problem: if it works, wonderful! but if it doesn’t work, by the time a particular family discovers that that they are not in a good position to homeschool, they won’t have any other good options. By that time, they may already have a large enough family that private school or a better (i.e. more expensive) public school system are totally off the table. So, at that point, they may have to choose between either lousy public school or inadequate homeschooling, whereas with a smaller family, they could have had a better range of options–homeschool, better public school system, maybe even private school.

For special needs families, this could have dire consequences.

 

[Brendan_64]

Imagine if you were on a Protestant forum and you saw a thread entitled “Catholic taint in American Protestantism that is not being talked about”. I doubt you would like it.

But if it was indeed a Protestant forum the, whether Iiked it or not, I would accept that Protestants would be entitled to hold such views and vocalise them on a Protestant forum.

I think that we concern ourselves too much with trying to avoid offending others.

 

[St_Francis]

With regard to discernment of family size, one thing that has been bugging me on CAF is overconfidence that a particular family will be able to homeschool successfully.

On CAF, we often see exchanges that look like this:

A: We need to have a smaller family because the public schools aren’t good and private school is expensive.

B: Why don’t you have more children and homeschool?

I saw that particular exchange (or one very like it) quite a number of times on CAF before it finally dawned on me what the problem is with it. Here’s the problem: if it works, wonderful! but if it doesn’t work, by the time a particular family discovers that that they are not in a good position to homeschool, they won’t have any other good options. By that time, they may already have a large enough family that private school or a better (i.e. more expensive) public school system are totally off the table. So, at that point, they may have to choose between either lousy public school or inadequate homeschooling, whereas with a smaller family, they could have had a better range of options–homeschool, better public school system, maybe even private school.

For special needs families, this could have dire consequences.

But the same can happen under other circumstances as well: a family maay plan to homeschool their two children and move to a place where that is financially feasible, and then find out … hsing doesn’t work for them, mother or child has cancer, child has special needs, etc.

A family can’t really plan for everything…

 

[kozlosap]

Nowhere in this discussion am I reading about how many parents have goals for their children such as undergrad and grad school, sports and music and travel so that the kids are not saddled with huge debt at age 25. This discussion is personal, not nebulous. If, in 2016 you wish to believe that marriage is primarily for procreation, that’s fine, but the majority of we babyboomers do not buy in. We want our kids to be better off than we are and, unless your family income is in the 1%, and you have more than 3 kids, it will not happen. Why, on God’s green earth, would anyone have 9 kids when they can only afford two? I certainly don’t see where having a large family that can’t afford new shoes for the kids, much less college, is a good and Holy thing.

 

[Xantippe]

But the same can happen under other circumstances as well: a family maay plan to homeschool their two children and move to a place where that is financially feasible, and then find out … hsing doesn’t work for them, mother or child has cancer, child has special needs, etc.

A family can’t really plan for everything…

That family still has more flexibility and options than the same family would with two or three times as many children, all things being equal.

There’s also the issue that homeschooling is something that only 3% (or whatever) of families are doing and as we know, lots of families jump in and out of homeschooling and homeschooling burnout is a thing.

simchafisher.wordpress.com/2010/08/24/why-were-not-home-schooling-next-this-year/

To plan a large family on the assumption that mom will be able to homeschool every single child K-12 is very rash. That’s a plan with no wiggle room, no margin for error.

 

[Xantippe]

Nowhere in this discussion am I reading about how many parents have goals for their children such as undergrad and grad school, sports and music and travel so that the kids are not saddled with huge debt at age 25. This discussion is personal, not nebulous. If, in 2016 you wish to believe that marriage is primarily for procreation, that’s fine, but the majority of we babyboomers do not buy in. We want our kids to be better off than we are and, unless your family income is in the 1%, and you have more than 3 kids, it will not happen. Why, on God’s green earth, would anyone have 9 kids when they can only afford two? I certainly don’t see where having a large family that can’t afford new shoes for the kids, much less college, is a good and Holy thing.

I’ll bracket sports and music and travel (as a lot of people will regard those as frills), but let’s talk about education and launching young adults.

I think it’s reasonable to say that a parent isn’t done raising their child until that child is economically self-sufficient. Unfortunately, it is taking a long time to get adult children to that point these days. In talking to middle class parents of young adults, it’s more the rule than the exception that the young adults will be on the family dole into their mid-20s. That is very expensive for the parents, even with just two children. To do it for four or more might be ruinous.

 

[gardenswithkids]

This thread brings to mind the term, “Protestant Work Ethic”. It’s sometimes called the Puritan Work Ethic. It’s associated with a view shared by many American’s that hard work brings about financial success, but there’s a historical Puritan or Calvinist twist that views success in this world as signs of grace.

That’s not the Catholic view of salvation, but American Catholics are frequently influenced by those around them. And while many Protestant American’s won’t exactly say that they view financial success as signs of grace, that view is still sort of there, usually in more subtle ways.

While there is nothing wrong with parents wanting good things for our children, **the phrase, “We want our children to be better off financially than we were” is found nowhere in the gospel. ** Ironically, compared to financially better-off parents who pay for private education and college for their one or two children, the hard working parents who live and raise their large families in poverty described in the original post likely may produce children who are financial better off than they are.

 

[Xantippe]

This thread brings to mind the term, “Protestant Work Ethic”. It’s sometimes called the Puritan Work Ethic. It’s associated with a view shared by many American’s that hard work brings about financial success, but there’s a historical Puritan or Calvinist twist that views success in this world as signs of grace.

That’s not the Catholic view of salvation, but American Catholics are frequently influenced by those around them. And while many Protestant American’s won’t exactly say that they view financial success as signs of grace, that view is still sort of there, usually in more subtle ways.

While there is nothing wrong with parents wanting good things for our children, the phrase, "We want our children to be better off financially than we were" is found nowhere in the gospel. Ironically, compared to financially better-off parents who pay for private education and college for their one or two children, the hard working parents who live and raise their large families in poverty described in the original post likely may produce children who are financial better off than they are.

Yes–and they may do that largely by having a smaller family.

 

[1ke]

I wholeheartedly agree.

You know, when I happened on this thread I thought, “wow is guy expresses exactly what I’ve been thinking lately.” And yes’m, Protestant “taint” fits… Well or unconsciously aborbing heretical beliefs.

Puritanism, a lot of the conservative Fundamentalist and Calvinist thinking in this country is rampant and it DOES absorb into Cathlic thinking because Catholics are much less insular than 50 years ago. Catholic culture is almost non existent now, so what is left is the dominant culture and that is decidedly NOT Catholic. It isn’t really pagan either, it is Protestant.

 

[Xantippe]

Right.

But at the same time, Protestants also soak up Catholic ideas.

You know, when I happened on this thread I thought, “wow is guy expresses exactly what I’ve been thinking lately.” And yes’m, Protestant “taint” fits… Well or unconsciously aborbing heretical beliefs.

Puritanism, a lot of the conservative Fundamentalist and Calvinist thinking in this country is rampant and it DOES absorb into Cathlic thinking because Catholics are much less insular than 50 years ago. Catholic culture is almost non existent now, so what is left is the dominant culture and that is decidedly NOT Catholic. It isn’t really pagan either, it is Protestant.

 

[Latinitas]

Nowhere in this discussion am I reading about how many parents have goals for their children such as undergrad and grad school, sports and music and travel so that the kids are not saddled with huge debt at age 25. This discussion is personal, not nebulous. If, in 2016 you wish to believe that marriage is primarily for procreation, that’s fine, but the majority of we babyboomers do not buy in. We want our kids to be better off than we are and, unless your family income is in the 1%, and you have more than 3 kids, it will not happen. Why, on God’s green earth, would anyone have 9 kids when they can only afford two? I certainly don’t see where having a large family that can’t afford new shoes for the kids, much less college, is a good and Holy thing.

Honestly, the one goal of parents should be to raise pious Catholic children who live virtuous lives which will one day be rewarded in Heaven. Catholics are required to believe that marriage is primarily for procreation. In 1944 the Holy Office responded to this very question:

Whether the opinion of certain recent persons can be admitted, who either deny that the primary purpose of matrimony is the generation and raising of offspring, or teach that the secondary purposes are not essentially subordinate to the primary purpose, but are equally first and independent?

Response: In the negative

-Holy Office Decree, 1944

So, I think you’re basing your ideas on a faulty understanding of the purpose of marriage, and the purpose of raising children.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

 

[Xantippe]

Honestly, the one goal of parents should be to raise pious Catholic children who live virtuous lives which will one day be rewarded in Heaven. Catholics are required to believe that marriage is primarily for procreation. In 1944 the Holy Office responded to this very question:

So, I think you’re basing your ideas on a faulty understanding of the purpose of marriage, and the purpose of raising children.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

Your own quote says, “the primary purpose of matrimony is the generation and raising of offspring.”

There are going to be disagreements as to what an adequate provision for children is, but in any case, it’s not good enough to simply create children–they also have to be brought up. When you are a parent, you will eventually discover that even just feeding and keeping a small number of children in shoes and clothes that fit and that aren’t worn out can be quite challenging on a moderate income (and even sometimes on a good income).

It’s also not unreasonable to think that if a child has God-given talents, that it is appropriate (indeed pious) to develop those talents. A musical child ought to (ideally) have music lessons. An artistic child should have art supplies. An athletic child ought to have appropriate equipment. An academically-gifted child ought to have a good school. Etc.

All of those things are much more expensive than you probably imagine right now.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Nowhere in this discussion am I reading about how many parents have goals for their children such as undergrad and grad school, sports and music and travel so that the kids are not saddled with huge debt at age 25. This discussion is personal, not nebulous. If, in 2016 you wish to believe that marriage is primarily for procreation, that’s fine, but the majority of we babyboomers do not buy in. We want our kids to be better off than we are and, unless your family income is in the 1%, and you have more than 3 kids, it will not happen. Why, on God’s green earth, would anyone have 9 kids when they can only afford two? I certainly don’t see where having a large family that can’t afford new shoes for the kids, much less college, is a good and Holy thing.

But is this adequate?

I know a man who raised 7 kids on a high school teacher’s salary. His wife was a stay at home mom. Yes, he did teach driver ed in the summer and did some coaching too, for extra money. But every last one of his children went to college, and they’re good people as near as I can tell. I’m sure it wasn’t easy, but they did it.

We have a fair number of recently immigrated Hispanics in our town. They always have money and larger families than do most “Anglos”. You see their women in good weather at the yard sales buying nearly pristine clothing for their children for next to nothing. You see them buy “clunkers” and doll them up themselves to the point that they really are neat looking. I don’t think I ever go into O’Reilley Automotive without seeing Hispanics in there buying car parts, oil filters and such.

I’m not sure one has to be in the “1%” to raise several children. What I think one has to be is in the lower percentages when it comes to spending. Does that mean no cell phone with all the trimmings for 13-year-old Suzie? Yes, probably. Does it mean young Tommy doesn’t get to buy the jeans “all the other kids wear” and has to wear Walmart jeans? I expect it does.

And do all college kids need to have cars? I know a guy with nine kids. Two of them are in University of Dallas right now. Both have scholarships, but it’s still a struggle. There was no question at all of them having a car.

One of the things I think is also missing nowadays is the willingness (and perhaps ability for many) of grandparents to help out. Many years ago when I was in banking, a very high percentage of down payments were made by grandparents. I still close loans for lenders, but I don’t see that anymore. Grandparents, I think, are now doing “all the travel they never got to do before”. I even see grandparent-age people buying or building expensive new houses for themselves. What are they thinking?

And not to be contrary here, but how does any baby boomer make himself believe his children will be better off than he was? Almost no parent can guarantee that, even a little. At a point, their children either achieve a reasonable degree of income or they don’t. One of my grandchildren in high school wants to be a forester. You don’t make a lot of money as a forester, though there’s a big demand for it because nobody goes into it. So maybe that kid won’t be as prosperous as his parents from an income standpoint. But he’ll probably be happy as a forester even so.

 

[claymcdermott]

Just gonna throw it out there without a real interest in getting involved in the convo: the sort of supposed Protestant taint in American Catholicism, is all some people of a particular stripe within traditionalism and liberal Catholicism talk about.

 

[Vico]

…

It is no wonder that St. Paul says in 1 Cor 7:

29 [l]I tell you, brothers, the time is running out. From now on, let those having wives act as not having them, 30 those weeping as not weeping, those rejoicing as not rejoicing, those buying as not owning, 31 those using the world as not using it fully. For the world in its present form is passing away.

32 I should like you to be free of anxieties. An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord. 33 But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, 34 and he is divided. An unmarried woman or a virgin is anxious about the things of the Lord, so that she may be holy in both body and spirit. A married woman, on the other hand, is anxious about the things of the world, how she may please her husband. 35 I am telling you this for your own benefit, not to impose a restraint upon you, but for the sake of propriety and adherence to the Lord without distraction.

[l] 7:29–31 The world…is passing away: Paul advises Christians to go about the ordinary activities of life in a manner different from those who are totally immersed in them and unaware of their transitoriness.

 

[Brendan]

Nowhere in this discussion am I reading about how many parents have goals for their children such as undergrad and grad school, sports and music and travel so that the kids are not saddled with huge debt at age 25. This discussion is personal, not nebulous. If, in 2016 you wish to believe that marriage is primarily for procreation, that’s fine, but the majority of we babyboomers do not buy in.

Kind of sad, and I for one, am glad that I am not a part of that ‘majority’.

We want our kids to be better off than we are and, unless your family income is in the 1%, and you have more than 3 kids, it will not happen.

Is the purpose of life to obtain for our children, more material goods than we have? Is that why God put any of us here on Earth? Seriously??

And if it is not, should we not seek to live our lives as God was us to? His goals for us, instead of our own?

Why, on God’s green earth, would anyone have 9 kids when they can only afford two?

Well, because God wanted them to have 9. A man and a woman cannot create a child without God creating the soul for the child. We cannot FORCE God to do it, it is something that He must actively choose to do.

Ergo, EVERY.SINGLE CHILD, no exceptions!, are ones that are wanted and desired by God.

It can be no other way.

I certainly don’t see where having a large family that can’t afford new shoes for the kids, much less college, is a good and Holy thing.

See above

 

[Xantippe]

But is this adequate?

I know a man who raised 7 kids on a high school teacher’s salary. His wife was a stay at home mom. Yes, he did teach driver ed in the summer and did some coaching too, for extra money. But every last one of his children went to college, and they’re good people as near as I can tell. I’m sure it wasn’t easy, but they did it.

We have a fair number of recently immigrated Hispanics in our town. They always have money and larger families than do most “Anglos”. You see their women in good weather at the yard sales buying nearly pristine clothing for their children for next to nothing. You see them buy “clunkers” and doll them up themselves to the point that they really are neat looking. I don’t think I ever go into O’Reilley Automotive without seeing Hispanics in there buying car parts, oil filters and such.

I’m not sure one has to be in the “1%” to raise several children. What I think one has to be is in the lower percentages when it comes to spending. Does that mean no cell phone with all the trimmings for 13-year-old Suzie? Yes, probably. Does it mean young Tommy doesn’t get to buy the jeans “all the other kids wear” and has to wear Walmart jeans? I expect it does.

And do all college kids need to have cars? I know a guy with nine kids. Two of them are in University of Dallas right now. Both have scholarships, but it’s still a struggle. There was no question at all of them having a car.

One of the things I think is also missing nowadays is the willingness (and perhaps ability for many) of grandparents to help out. Many years ago when I was in banking, a very high percentage of down payments were made by grandparents. I still close loans for lenders, but I don’t see that anymore. Grandparents, I think, are now doing “all the travel they never got to do before”. I even see grandparent-age people buying or building expensive new houses for themselves. What are they thinking?

1. I suspect your high school teacher example guy either lives in a low cost area or did this some years ago or the family had an inheritance of some kind or massive student loans. In higher cost areas, even raising two children on a moderate income can be quite a feat.

Before we finally bailed on the DC area, I found myself looking at smallish high $400s houses in iffy neighborhoods with so-so public schools in suburban Maryland (and I went through some rough neighborhoods). It was immensely demoralizing. We had “only” two children at the time and I was starting to understand enough about money to realize we couldn’t afford the area. Fortunately, we were able to leave, but not everybody can.

1. Public high school teachers typically have better benefits than people that make the same income elsewhere. So, it’s not unlikely that your guy had a good retirement plan and good medical care for the family, both major issues.

If a more typical family had their last child at 43 and delayed much retirement savings until they had their last child out of college, their serious retirement savings could only begin at 65.

Oops.

1. Many young parents now carry heavy student loans and are trying to pay them while raising a family on a moderate income.
2. It takes a long time to launch young adults these days, so parents can expect it to take a while to get adult children off the family dole. From what I hear, anybody who gets their kids to financial independence by 25 is doing awesome. .
3. I have to say that this makes me really mad: “What I think one has to be is in the lower percentages when it comes to spending. Does that mean no cell phone with all the trimmings for 13-year-old Suzie? Yes, probably. Does it mean young Tommy doesn’t get to buy the jeans “all the other kids wear” and has to wear Walmart jeans? I expect it does.”

This is one of the biggest misconceptions out there. Everybody points the finger at “stuff,” but small consumer items aren’t a big deal–stuff is very cheap. They were selling $35 Kindle Fires on Black Friday. What’s expensive is an ER bill, major home repair bill, major dental bill, new washer, new air conditioning, living in a school district with good public schools or paying for private school and saving for college.

1. You do have some interesting points here:

“One of the things I think is also missing nowadays is the willingness (and perhaps ability for many) of grandparents to help out. Many years ago when I was in banking, a very high percentage of down payments were made by grandparents. I still close loans for lenders, but I don’t see that anymore. Grandparents, I think, are now doing “all the travel they never got to do before”. I even see grandparent-age people buying or building expensive new houses for themselves. What are they thinking?”

I have to give credit to my generous in-laws, as they were able to contribute half of our house downpayment. Yay in-laws!

However, both sets of Boomer grandparents live far away, are preoccupied with work, and rarely make it here.

We definitely do not get the sort of consistent, hands-on grandma help that our parents got from their parents.