The Protestant taint in American Catholicism that nobody is talking about

[Ridgerunner]

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.

.

Undoubtedly true to a degree. Costs vary tremendously from place to place in this country. His house, today, would probably cost about $150,000.00-$175,000.00, new. It would have been much less, of course, when he bought it. I don’t think he inherited anything. There was a small acreage; ten acres I believe, and he has a large garden. His wife preserved a lot of food. I imagine the children helped a lot with that. Then and now, high schoolers could find work in the summertime and during the school year.

Public colleges are inexpensive now, relatively speaking, but were much less then.

He would have had a pretty good health insurance from the school system, and a modest retirement income.

Never did I say “living below one’s means” is easy. It isn’t. But that is the hallmark of nearly anyone who succeeds on his own financially.

 

[Xantippe]

Undoubtedly true to a degree. Costs vary tremendously from place to place in this country. His house, today, would probably cost about $150,000.00-$175,000.00, new. It would have been much less, of course, when he bought it. I don’t think he inherited anything. There was a small acreage; ten acres I believe, and he has a large garden. His wife preserved a lot of food. I imagine the children helped a lot with that. Then and now, high schoolers could find work in the summertime and during the school year.

Public colleges are inexpensive now, relatively speaking, but were much less then.

He would have had a pretty good health insurance from the school system, and a modest retirement income.

Never did I say “living below one’s means” is easy. It isn’t. But that is the hallmark of nearly anyone who succeeds on his own financially.

Right.

A lot of people will not have a larger family, though, as part of living below their means.

Speaking very roughly (as I understand there are tax advantages involved), once we give away 10% of our income (not a requirement to give that particular number, but charity is more explicitly part of the Christian life in the NT than having a large family), save 10% of our income for retirement, and try to save 10% for college savings, we’ve already spent a fair chunk of our income.

Again, there are tax advantages involved, but it’s still a fair chunk of money that is not available to meet current needs.

Also, come to think of it, I think there’s something a little wonky about the fact that on CAF, you will often see CAFers twisting people’s arms and guilting them to have another baby or two, whereas I don’t think I’ve ever seen CAFers twisting anybody’s arm to give more generously. Weird. It may be that I mostly spend my time in the Family forum rather than other forums, but I think that historically, this emphasis would have seemed odd.

And while I’m here, I have to add that you often see the argument, “If you can afford X you can afford Y”. In this context, X might be a nice house or nice car and Y might be another baby. In practice, the person under discussion generally can’t afford X, either.

 

[Xantippe]

Here’s an example of a larger family going splat financially:

crisismagazine.com/2013/of-dave-ramsey-babies-and-birth-control

That’s not the purpose of the article–the stated purpose of the article is to slam Dave Ramsey, but I’ll just set that aside and pull out some quotes from the article and the author’s comment in the comment thread illustrating what can happen when the larger family hits the US facts-of-life head-on:

“Anyway, for a brief time—an extremely brief time—we were debt-free, except for the mortgage. We had become “gazelle intense,” in Ramsey parlance, and we were on the road to becoming totally debt-free! But then God blessed us with another baby. And then another. Suddenly, our “financial peace” went out the window, and we were scrambling to replace those shredded credit cards.”

"You’ll recall in my story that we were able to achieve debt-free (except the mortgage) status for a period of time, but then we were blessed with additional children. Even if we had “planned” those children and had adequately budgeted for them, we couldn’t have foreseen the fact that our Nicky would require open heart surgery.

"Nick, our sixth, also has Down syndrome. Before he was born, we had resisted applying for Medicaid to avoid depending on government aid. Today I’m incredibly grateful to the social worker who urged us to enroll him after he was born because, even with good insurance, the co-pay for his heart surgery a year later ran into the tens of thousands. We would’ve been sunk.

“So, government assistance, credit cards from time to time, personal loans from generous friends and family – we get by.”

What would happen to a family in that situation that wasn’t Medicaid eligible? A lot of bad stuff.

And the special needs issue is a whole book in itself–just one child’s expenses could sink you.

autismsupportnetwork.com/news/parenting-and-high-cost-autism

"Children, ages 5 to 11, who attend the Brooklyn Autism Center Academy which offers intensive educational instruction as one example have an annual tuition of $85,000 per year. Individual therapists can easily run $100-200 or more per hour, with a child’s needs easily requiring dozens of hours a week in therapy. While there is a general tide – slowly turning – for health insurance companies to cover some of these costs, there is no universal coverage across every state in the country, and many therapies are not covered at all. Families are often forced to choose between financial stability and going out of pocket for treating their child. It is not uncommon in this cycle for families to dig themselves into debt, sell their assets, and in some cases be forced into foreclosure or bankruptcy over the medical costs incurred in seeking to better their autistic child’s circumstances.

“The costs for a child with autism only continue on as that child grows into an adult, as more social services are required for that person over his or her lifetime. According to a Harvard School of Public Health study published in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine in the spring of 2007, the typical American spends about $317,000 over his or her lifetime in direct medical costs, incurring 60% of those costs after age 65 years. In contrast, people with autism incur about $306,000 in additional direct medical costs, implying that people with autism spend twice as much as the typical American over their lifetimes and spend 60% of those incremental direct medical costs after age 21 years.”

The Brooklyn Academy’s rates are high (natural for NYC area), but private school tuition at schools that serve autistic children is much, much more expensive than standard parochial school.

The thing is, one can’t be guaranteed “cheap” kids.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Here’s an example of a larger family going splat financially:

crisismagazine.com/2013/of-dave-ramsey-babies-and-birth-control

That’s not the purpose of the article–the stated purpose of the article is to slam Dave Ramsey, but I’ll just set that aside and pull out some quotes from the article and the author’s comment in the comment thread illustrating what can happen when the larger family hits the US facts-of-life head-on:

“Anyway, for a brief time—an extremely brief time—we were debt-free, except for the mortgage. We had become “gazelle intense,” in Ramsey parlance, and we were on the road to becoming totally debt-free! But then God blessed us with another baby. And then another. Suddenly, our “financial peace” went out the window, and we were scrambling to replace those shredded credit cards.”

"You’ll recall in my story that we were able to achieve debt-free (except the mortgage) status for a period of time, but then we were blessed with additional children. Even if we had “planned” those children and had adequately budgeted for them, we couldn’t have foreseen the fact that our Nicky would require open heart surgery.

"Nick, our sixth, also has Down syndrome. Before he was born, we had resisted applying for Medicaid to avoid depending on government aid. Today I’m incredibly grateful to the social worker who urged us to enroll him after he was born because, even with good insurance, the co-pay for his heart surgery a year later ran into the tens of thousands. We would’ve been sunk.

“So, government assistance, credit cards from time to time, personal loans from generous friends and family – we get by.”

What would happen to a family in that situation that wasn’t Medicaid eligible? A lot of bad stuff.

And the special needs issue is a whole book in itself–just one child’s expenses could sink you.

autismsupportnetwork.com/news/parenting-and-high-cost-autism

"Children, ages 5 to 11, who attend the Brooklyn Autism Center Academy which offers intensive educational instruction as one example have an annual tuition of $85,000 per year. Individual therapists can easily run $100-200 or more per hour, with a child’s needs easily requiring dozens of hours a week in therapy. While there is a general tide – slowly turning – for health insurance companies to cover some of these costs, there is no universal coverage across every state in the country, and many therapies are not covered at all. Families are often forced to choose between financial stability and going out of pocket for treating their child. It is not uncommon in this cycle for families to dig themselves into debt, sell their assets, and in some cases be forced into foreclosure or bankruptcy over the medical costs incurred in seeking to better their autistic child’s circumstances.

“The costs for a child with autism only continue on as that child grows into an adult, as more social services are required for that person over his or her lifetime. According to a Harvard School of Public Health study published in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine in the spring of 2007, the typical American spends about $317,000 over his or her lifetime in direct medical costs, incurring 60% of those costs after age 65 years. In contrast, people with autism incur about $306,000 in additional direct medical costs, implying that people with autism spend twice as much as the typical American over their lifetimes and spend 60% of those incremental direct medical costs after age 21 years.”

The Brooklyn Academy’s rates are high (natural for NYC area), but private school tuition at schools that serve autistic children is much, much more expensive than standard parochial school.

The thing is, one can’t be guaranteed “cheap” kids.

Perhaps it’s true that the typical American spends $306,000 on an autistic child somewhere. I’m not disputing that. But that really depends on where one lives. It also depends on the degree of autism. In my state, the public schools are required to provide qualified remedial education, occupational therapy, physical therapy to an autistic child. At age 18, most truly autistic people qualify for SSI and Medicaid. If they earned enough quarters or their parents are over 65, they get SS retirement benefits and Medicare. There is also subsidized housing and 24/7 staffing from the ARCs.

But I’ll agree, there are no “cheap” kids.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Right.

A lot of people will not have a larger family, though, as part of living below their means.

Speaking very roughly (as I understand there are tax advantages involved), once we give away 10% of our income (not a requirement to give that particular number, but charity is more explicitly part of the Christian life in the NT than having a large family), save 10% of our income for retirement, and try to save 10% for college savings, we’ve already spent a fair chunk of our income.

Again, there are tax advantages involved, but it’s still a fair chunk of money that is not available to meet current needs.

Also, come to think of it, I think there’s something a little wonky about the fact that on CAF, you will often see CAFers twisting people’s arms and guilting them to have another baby or two, whereas I don’t think I’ve ever seen CAFers twisting anybody’s arm to give more generously. Weird. It may be that I mostly spend my time in the Family forum rather than other forums, but I think that historically, this emphasis would have seemed odd.

And while I’m here, I have to add that you often see the argument, “If you can afford X you can afford Y”. In this context, X might be a nice house or nice car and Y might be another baby. In practice, the person under discussion generally can’t afford X, either.

I understand what you’re saying, but I think there can be valid distinctions. Back when we were raising our family, I apologized to the parish priest that we didn’t give a whole lot to the parish. “But you are”, he responded. “You’re giving your children a Catholic education and a Catholic upbringing. That means more that what you put in the basket.”

Soooooooo, I probably never gave that biblical 10%. But all of my children and grandchildren are faithful Catholics, and that’s worth a lot to me.

As to retirement, I think that’s the most overrated “good” there is, for most. SS isn’t great but, depending on where you live, it’s not bad. And anybody who isn’t disabled can work. At least around here you can. And if one is disabled, what’s he going to spend a big retirement check on?

Now, I will agree that taxes take too much of our income. A few years ago I read that if the child deduction was the same as it was in Truman’s day, (adjusted for inflation) it would be $20,000 per child. So, if you made the equivalent in today’s dollars of $80,000 and had four children, you wouldn’t pay any taxes at all. As a people, we have allowed politicians to loot us. As a result, we have a native-born birth rate that’s below replacement. As a people, we have expressed stupid wants to government, and government has stupidly met them.

I realize we all think of college costs in terms of the gross amount, and it’s huge in private education. But there really are ways if a person is determined enough. Not far from where I sit is a college that charges no tuition at all. You do have to work there, though, including farm work. It’s not Harvard, but it’s not a bad education there. There is a Catholic college up north that gives free tuition to any graduate of a Catholic high school. Can’t remember the name, but I think it’s run by Benedictines. Wyoming Catholic College guarantees that no student will graduate with more than $30,000 in debt. Lots of people graduate with more debt than that.

I’m not saying it isn’t hard. I recall, some years back, when my wife and I had ten dollars to buy a week’s groceries for us and the two children we had then. We were really careful, but we did it. The embarrassing moment came when a cowboy who was ahead of us in line ended up with more food than we did, and spent less for it. There were plenty of times I got behind in payments, just not fatally so.

 

[Theo520]

It reads like his main problem is the sin of pride.
He worries way too much about what other people think of him.

What I am talking about is difficult to put to words. I can’t call it “capitalism” because that word means different things to different people and I can’t call it the “prosperity gospel” because I don’t think that the taint I’m referring to manifests itself in Catholics as a true belief that people don’t prosper because of sin.

Rather, I think it is simply a disconnect between Catholic social justice issues as they are practiced in America. From what I have observed, American Catholicism is just a little too friendly with the American attitude towards economics. What I mean is that there is an entrenched ignorance in the way American economic attitudes interact with social justice issues and that manifests in a very specific way with Catholicism.

As a starting point, let’s take the holy, Catholic view of human sexuality. (I don’t say “holy” sarcastically. The Catholic view is the holy view.) Human sexuality’s primary end is the procreation of children in marriage. Married sexuality’s secondary ends are the union of the spouses, and, lastly, a means to curb the corrupted sexual appetite in a mercifully holy way. (See 1 Corinthians 7:9).

Now, fast-forward to the current situation in America. There is a culture war going on between liberals and conservatives regarding what sexual behaviors we want to encourage or discourage. Catholics tend to fall in with the conservatives on these issues, largely because the conservatives tend to take a healthier, truer view of human sexuality. But it is precisely here where I’ve noticed a problem.

A side effect of joining our voices with American conservatives on sexual ethics is that we have unconsciously adopted some very non-Catholic (and even morally reprehensible) viewpoints on economics; at least in our attitudes that manifest during consideration of economic issues.

The only way I can clarify what I’m getting at is to illustrate by example. Take a young, unwed Catholic couple who are sincere in their faith. They love each other. They are in their biological prime for procreation which means their sexual appetites for one another are very strong. This also means, by American standards, that they are unusually young for marriage. No matter, they know that society’s standards can be mistaken and they know that God has designed marriage to facilitate their sexuality in a holy way. They get married. They quickly have kids. They quickly have a lot of kids because they are sincere Catholics. They start to have money issues. The husband is a hard worker, but he is unfortunate enough to be a part of the majority of Americans who can work 60 hours a week and still not make enough money to support a large family. They talk to their priest. Their priest gives them permission to practice nfp. They meet with success in practicing nfp, but they have nevertheless managed to have two more children while trying to use nfp to indefinitely postpone further pregnancies. They try to share the emotional hardships that come with this with their Catholic friends, but they shockingly receive unspoken judgment from them. They can tell they think things like, “If you make so little money, then why did you have so many kids?” “Why did they get married so young without being first financially stable?”

They dare not apply for government assistance because even their Catholic friends don’t think anything positive about anyone on welfare. They know they will be looked at as lazy freeloaders and irresponsible, lustful people with no self-control even though the father works 60 hours a week and they are only following their religious convictions on sexuality.

They want to send their kids to a Catholic school, but they cannot afford it. They apply for scholarships to be eligible, but it is a very shame-based process and they are made to feel like they are being an inconvenience to everyone who can afford to pay their own way.

They had dreams of adopting children in addition to their own because they wanted women to feel like they could give their unwanted children a decent home through adoption instead of feeling like they had to get an abortion, but they know they are not eligible. They first don’t have the money and they also don’t meet the necessary criteria to even be eligible. They don’t have the house space.

So, they live out the remainder of their lives even being scorned by their Catholic friends who view them as lazy, irresponsible, and burdens to the more fortunate.

This is all very backwards and counterproductive thinking to the promotion of good Catholic sexual ethics in American society. And I am scandalized every time I see a total lack of effort to transform our economic culture to that which accompanies a right view of sexuality. An economic attitude that welcomes children as much as the individual couple are called to and one which won’t penalize young Catholic couples for trying to remain chaste and diligent in their faith.

I posted this to Traditional Catholicism only because no other forum seemed to fit and the Traditional Catholicism forum seems to deal a lot with Catholic culture in he context of American culture. I did not post this here because I think it’s an issue inherent with Catholics who prefer older Catholic praxis and the Latin Mass.

 

[Xantippe]

As to retirement, I think that’s the most overrated “good” there is, for most. SS isn’t great but, depending on where you live, it’s not bad. And anybody who isn’t disabled can work. At least around here you can. And if one is disabled, what’s he going to spend a big retirement check on?

I can think of lots of things to spend money on if disabled:

1. household help
2. maintenance and household projects you can’t do yourself
3. grocery delivery
4. cable/good internet/etc.
5. uber/taxis
6. an appropriate diet
7. an appropriately located apartment (ground level?) in a suitable neighborhood
8. adaptation of an existing home

My older relatives routinely live into their 90s, and I can’t help but notice that it is nicer to have a little something in one’s old age than to not have a little something. My grandparents are 90 and 94 and they have so far been able to live in their own home, keep up maintenance and repairs (that often falls apart for older people) and replace stuff that needs replacing. They are also able to give modestly to their grandchildren and great-grandchildren, rather than needing financial help from the family. It’s a very attractive model of old age. As they say, it is more blessed to give than to receive (Acts 20:35).