As Catholics, I think we agree that “modelling God’s love” means modelling both His mercy and His justice. The question is: How best to do this? Personally, I believe there’s a lot of leeway in this area. On the topic at hand, I don’t think the Church teaches – even “unofficially” – that spanking is a) required, or b) wrong.
SteveG:
*] The New Testament overwhelmingly rejects retributive justice in dealing with offenders.
I agree that it’s less evident in the NT, but I don’t think it’s gone altogether. For instance, in Acts 5, Ananias and Sapphira are struck dead by God.
As Avery Cardinal Dulles says,
“The early Christian community …] approve of the divine punishment meted out to Ananias and Sapphira when they are rebuked by Peter for their fraudulent action (Acts 5:1-11).”
pewforum.org/deathpenalty/resources/reader/17.php3
I’m not saying that errant children should be struck dead (or eaten by a lion, a la Hilaire Belloc
). I’m just saying that God does use his “divine justice” to punish sinners in the NT. This would seem to undermine the claim made above.
I read this as simply stating that the tenets of the faith don’t contradict this style of parenting, without condemning or even saying anything further about other styles. But hey, it let you ridicule his writing style, so it’s OK that you misrepresented it.
I’m sorry if my style was too sarcastic.
I still think this statement is off-base, though. In context (“PWG”, pp. 355-6):
"
4. Spanking flies in the face of good science.
The Church respects good science because it simply describes the natural order created by God. …]
This validity of science extends fully to the study of human psychology. The Catholic Encyclopedia defines it as “the science of mind and behavior … concerned with the investigation of behavior and [human] experience by means of controlled observation, experimentation and measurement.” The role of Catholic psychologists is to practice their profession to the highest scientific standards and interpret their findings in a way consistent with the principles of their faith. God’s supernatural and natural truths cannot conflict. It is predictable, then, that modern psychology and the tenets of the Catholic Faith are utterly harmonious on the subject of discipline."
I simply don’t believe his claim that “modern psychology” is a totally reliable guide to God’s natural truths. Maybe this would be true in some ideal world, where there was no such thing as faulty research, selection bias, etc. As it stands, though, modern psychologists – Catholic or otherwise – often can’t even agree with
each other.
For instance, Judith Rich Harris’s meta-analysis of studies suggests that the effects of spanking depends on the culture. For American children of white European ancestry, spanking is linked to anti-social behavior (ASB). But for American children of Black and Asian ancestry, spanking is linked to
less ASB.
How can this be? Well, Ms. Harris claims that spanking is considered more acceptable in the Black and Asian communities. Therefore, Black and Asian parents who spank are more likely to be conformist, and less likely to display anti-social behavior themselves. A genetic tendency for “going with the flow” might be passed along to their children.
Spanking is just one example of how Catholic parents – in good faith, and with careful attention to the evidence – can come to very different conclusions about what’s best for their family. Same goes for other issues, such as home birth, home schooling, co-sleeping, and vegetarianism. It’s fine to promote our family’s choices in these areas…as long as we present them as our personal view, and not the authoritative teaching of the Church.
Vive la difference.
God bless,
Mrs. R.