Traditional understanding of family as vocation vs. a Christian's responsibilities outside the home

[Jacafamala]

Did anyone catch Fr. Richard Ho lung’s show this week on EWTN? I was hoping to get some feedback about it. Father usually has some very beautiful things tosay about how our lives of service tie into the Mass, and I usually like what I hear from him.

Last night I was up with a sick child, and caught the show very late–or very early as the case may be… (please pray for little Mary, she has the flu) Anyway, he was talking to the lay people about service outside the home. He said “charity doesn’t begin in the home; it begins outside of the home”. Do you agree with that? His point I believe was to stress the necessity of our service outside of the home.

To his credit, Father also said that we shouldn’t turn our daughters into princesses and our sons into princes. He said we should teach them service. I totally agree with this. However, I would have to add that if you have a fair number of kids to begin with, the prince and princess problem takes care of itself. More than two or three kids, and there are too many to spoil.

What of a mom staying home and making her husband and children her first priority? Shouldn’t she be tending to the little flock God has given her? Or should we all be running off to join one of the multitudes of causes in the world? I tend to think not; I tend to think we’d do better focusing on the children we’ve brought into the world, and yes, doing what we can for the poor, but keeping our efforts limited. I agree that most lay family people can and should do some works of mercy outside of the home, but to what extent?

Do you think that the the traditional lines between responsibilities of the lay and the religious within the Church can become overly blurred to the detriment of our children?

Just a penny for your thoughts…

 

[tcraig]

He said “charity doesn’t begin in the home; it begins outside of the home”. Do you agree with that? His point I believe was to stress the necessity of our service outside of the home.

I disagree with that statement, and so do many spiritual books I have read.

The family is the first means of socialization and the first (and usually best) opportunity that we have to practice charity and serve others with a cheerful and giving spirit. If we can’t or don’t learn it at home, it’s unlikely that we will extend it towards others.

 

[Jacafamala]

I disagree with that statement, and so do many spiritual books I have read.

The family is the first means of socialization and the first (and usually best) opportunity that we have to practice charity and serve others with a cheerful and giving spirit. If we can’t or don’t learn it at home, it’s unlikely that we will extend it towards others.

Yeah, that was my thought exactly: it’s where we practice. Perhaps as a priest, it’s harder for Father to understand the importance of love beginning at home the way a lay person who has kids could.

Thanks for your reply.

 

[brigid12]

I disagree with that statement, and so do many spiritual books I have read.

The family is the first means of socialization and the first (and usually best) opportunity that we have to practice charity and serve others with a cheerful and giving spirit. If we can’t or don’t learn it at home, it’s unlikely that we will extend it towards others.

I agree here! I also think a “stay at home mother” has an even greater responsibility to teach her children to serve, also to assist her husband since “to whom much is given, much is required”. Not that a single, working mother doesn’t have that responsibility at all, but she hasn’t been given as much , one way or the other. She would need to make sure that her children were taught that by someone else who had the time.

 

[Jacafamala]

I agree here! I also think a “stay at home mother” has an even greater responsibility to teach her children to serve, also to assist her husband since “to whom much is given, much is required”. Not that a single, working mother doesn’t have that responsibility at all, but she hasn’t been given as much , one way or the other. She would need to make sure that her children were taught that by someone else who had the time.

Good point about a stay at home mom being even more responsible in teaching her kids. I’d agree.

Did anyone see that program last night? I’d be interested to know if you think I’ve gotten it right in terms of what Father was saying.

 

[Feanaro_s_Wife]

**I didn’t see it but would like to share my thoughts. I think what may have been meant is that no matter how well you treat eachother as a family it is no substitute for serving others…it is very easy to fall into the loving family role and think you’re doing great… then you hear an attitude from one (or more) of your children like “poor people just don’t work hard enough”, or “why should I help them, they got into that mess?”…etc etc etc.

Of course, since I only have a 2 year old I don’t speak from experience. But I do know that in my family (parents and my sister) we would do anything for eachother…but we were never taught to “do” for others. We weren’t explicitly taught not to either though… more of a “take care of ourselves first and if there is anything left over…” well, there never has been any money or time leftover.

So maybe that is what he is speaking of? While it is tough to spoil children with lots of siblings, it is easy to breed the kind of selfishness that comes with putting family at too high of a priority, if that makes sense?**

 

[brigid12]

**I didn’t see it but would like to share my thoughts. I think what may have been meant is that no matter how well you treat eachother as a family it is no substitute for serving others…it is very easy to fall into the loving family role and think you’re doing great… then you hear an attitude from one (or more) of your children like “poor people just don’t work hard enough”, or “why should I help them, they got into that mess?”…etc etc etc.

Of course, since I only have a 2 year old I don’t speak from experience. But I do know that in my family (parents and my sister) we would do anything for eachother…but we were never taught to “do” for others. We weren’t explicitly taught not to either though… more of a “take care of ourselves first and if there is anything left over…” well, there never has been any money or time leftover.

So maybe that is what he is speaking of? While it is tough to spoil children with lots of siblings, it is easy to breed the kind of selfishness that comes with putting family at too high of a priority, if that makes sense?**

:yup: