Wives at home without children

  • Thread starter Thread starter twf
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
GiftofMercy said:
he would never call anyone a sinner for using it. Do you have a quote from him that says people using childcare are sinners?
Click to expand...
Same video about men needing to work 2+ jobs. Can’t find it, but it has been posted on here a few times.
 
TC3033 said:
I did…I watched almost the entire thing.
Click to expand...
It goes for over an hour.
TC3033 said:
Same video about men needing to work 2+ jobs and daycare being the work of demons.
Click to expand...
He is an exorcist, He will have given reasons if he stated that.

Again his talks go for longer then 4-10 minutes. And his points can be totally missed or taken out of context.

I will find some links later this weekend .

His main theme is adhering to Church teaching, how to keep life and marriages strong, and of course , how to shut the door or not open it to the diabolic. He attributes all that work to Christ, and not himself.
 
I enjoy him. Can you post concrete issues of where he was not verifying sources please.
 
You have truncate my post in the goal to ridiculize me.

Sorry to be lazy and don’t do enough for you.

Home chores and maintenance is not only the washing up. But it is silly to say that to care of an house and cooking for 3 people does not take time.

And yes, we received friends on a regular basis when we were still childless and have friends around us. Not all the day, but we go out or receive at least more than once a week.

And no I was not a full time housewife at this time. And yes, I had help, I didn’t do all the chores.
 
Last edited:
I am thinking there may be unacknowledged cultural differences clouding this discussion. In the U.S., the average family or couple doesn’t “receive friends” in a manner that would require half of the couple to stay at home and not get a job. It sounds like you experience a more formal form of entertaining friends at your house than the average American or Canadian does. I don’t think anyone was trying to ridicule you.
 
Here, I don’t think, apart some a very small minority priviledge class (that have to create regular class gatherings for many reasons) the average family don’t receive friends in a manner that requiere the wife to stay home too.

If a family don’t have the time to receive, they don’t receive.
 
twf said:
Fr Ripperger
Click to expand...
I’d never heard this so just had to go hear it for myself.

It can be found here:


And the first 11 minutes here (where he is supposed to be giving an authoritative source for his assertions, but never actually does):


So, yeah, he asserts it’s a mortal sin but can’t provide any church document to substantiate his position.

And in this one, on Proverbs 31, he either ignores the verses that refer to the woman working or simply asserts that it doesn’t mean that:

Color me unimpressed.

Oops this was meant for @TC3033
 
Last edited:
QwertyGirl said:
I agree it is good for a parent to be home when kids are young. But it can be either the mother or the father. Either will work, as long as they want to be there.
Click to expand...
I think the main reason why I said, “A mother” is that it is the mother who nurses infants and young toddlers, not the father. I believe strongly in breast-feeding, and I have to give a lot of credit to the young women who work in our hospital who have to visit the “Lactation Station” several times a day to pump breast milk.

Yes, pumping is preferable to ending breast-feeding. But there are other benefits to breast-feeding than just the milk. It’s the bonding time, the closeness, the skin-to-skin contact, and I would love to see young women have the opportunity to nurse in person as long as they and their baby wish.

I agree with you that once children are weaned, it doesn’t matter which parent stays home to raise their children.
 
twf said:
Does Professor Hahn work two full time jobs? 😛
Click to expand...
I’m not certain, but I think ?? that all of the Hahn’s children are essentially “grownup” now.

I remember when we converted in 2004 that the Hahns still had a very young child, perhaps even a baby. But that was 15 years ago, so it’s not likely that the teens need someone to take care of them.

YES, teens need parents, and a parent’s job isn’t finished just because a child is a teenager! But the day-to-day “grind” of making meals, giving baths, changing diapers, rocking a restless child to sleep, getting up during the night to comfort a child, reading books that not only entertain but also teach, teaching the child to talk and walk, training a child to have good manners and charitable actions, teaching them about GOD and the Church—all these are not generally necessary with teenagers if the parents have done their work all along as their children were growing up.

Dr. James Dobson (my child-rearing hero!) states that a child should be capable of adult skills by the time they are 16 years old. This means that a 16-year old should be capable of caring for themselves–bathing, grooming, dressing, choosing their own clothing, shopping for their own clothing, holding down some kind of paying “job” (yes, babysitting, mowing lawns, dog-walking, and all the other “first time jobs” counts!), driving a car, taking care of younger children, making and keeping their own doctors’ and dentist appointments, getting themselves up and ready for school/work, planning their own daily schedule and keeping it, preparing meals and snacks (and not eating junk all the time), dealing with emergencies, and of course, attending church and maintaining a relationship with God.

I think the Hahn children are all teens and therefore “Dobson Adults.”

(BTW, we followed Dobson’s guidelines and our daughters were definitely capable of acting as adults by the time they were 16. Both girls had paying jobs before they turned 16, and they pretty much ran their own lives by then, too. It was delightful for all of us!)
 
Last edited:
QwertyGirl said:
I am thinking there may be unacknowledged cultural differences clouding this discussion. In the U.S., the average family or couple doesn’t “receive friends” in a manner that would require half of the couple to stay at home and not get a job. It sounds like you experience a more formal form of entertaining friends at your house than the average American or Canadian does. I don’t think anyone was trying to ridicule you.
Click to expand...
Thank you.

Anicette, If indeed, you are from a different culture than those of us in the U.S., your life will be very different from ours.

I am not ridiculing you. I am stating that people in the U.S. generally don’t “receive friends.” We hold get-togethers, parties, dinners, gatherings, etc., and generally for many of us, these events involve a great deal of planning and preparation, and we don’t do them often, usually on holidays and special occasions.

Thanksgiving is a perfect example. My sister-in-law hosted the family in their beautiful home in the Chicago suburbs, and I know that she probably spent the entire week cleaning and organizing her house so that we would have a comfortable and pleasant time. (She is a stay-at-home wife/mother.)

But ALL of us (except for our aging parents) contributed to the meal. My husband and I brought five dishes (that means food) to pass, and we started cooking these foods the evening before, were up until nearly midnight, and were up early the next morning to finish our preparations. (I was off work at my request.) My sister-in-law also prepared five dishes to pass, and she was nearly an hour late to the meal-time because she couldn’t finish it all at the time originally designated.

So yes, we work hard on our “events” and “holidays.”

But during most of the year, most Americans don’t have much company in their homes. Instead, we invite people to meet us for coffee or a drink or a beer, or we make arrangements to meet at a restaurant for a meal.

I wish this were not the way American life is. I do know people who regularly have friends and family drop in without any notice, and they enjoy having the company.

But most Americans enjoy going home and having a relaxing evening or day with just their immediate family. Having company is a “big deal” for Americans, and most of us don’t do it as often as we wish we could.

Good for you for being hospitable to guests!
 
Last edited:
How is his approach pastoral or loving? It just seems to rile the troops that already think as he does. How does this help struggling families who already wish they could just stay home and order a maid around?
 
Last edited:
Pnwcatholic said:
How is his approach pastoral or loving? It just seems to rile the troops that already think as he does. How does this help struggling families who already wish they could just stay home and order a maid around?
Click to expand...
Hmmm, I’m not sure why you are asking me this question?

Are you somehow under the impression I am in agreement with this priest’s opinions?
 
Peeps said:
I agree with you that once children are weaned, it doesn’t matter which parent stays home to raise their children.
Click to expand...
Except that the child (at least the breastfeeding one, and these raised by their mother) would tend to prefer their mother for usual care and relationship.
 
I don’t believe breastfeeding is always best. It certainly wasnt in my situation, for a variety of reasons.
 
Anicette said:
If you speak of a life with a house, a garden and growing your own vegetables, fruits, eggs etc; I don’t agree. All this, gardening, and canning, freezing,doing marmelades, cooking, cleaning, laundry, etc can be very time consumming, mostly during summer.
Click to expand...
Thank you, yes! For the most part I am a wife at home without children. My family is grown. I work one day a week as a fill in nurse.

I am rarely bored at home. Taking care of a house and home is work.
QwertyGirl said:
Because it’s not his life, so it’s none of his business.
Click to expand...
Priests are trained in Catholic family teaching, psychology and morality, so really it is their business to pastor us into what the Church teaches regarding family.
 
MagdalenaRita said:
Priests are trained in Catholic family teaching, psychology and morality, so really it is their business to pastor us into what the Church teaches regarding family.
Click to expand...
Yes, but what he advocates for is not Church teaching. It is only his opinion. In my opinion, he needs to be VERY clear that what he proposes is opinion, only. Otherwise you wind up with misguided people believing the Church expects things from them that it doesn’t.
 
I used to suffer from scrupulosity. I’m mostly over it now and I can say to myself that I don’t agree with Fr R. on this, but I think it’s very imprudent to broadcast the statement that something most people don’t even consider sinful is a mortal sin, when you have no idea what the mental state of the listener is.

I recognise that there comes a point where prioritising one’s career over family for selfish reasons could become sinful, perhaps even gravely so. But most people are not in that situation and scrupulous people could end up making some poor life decisions based on this YouTube video.
 
I’m surprised no one has yet mentioned the episode of Trent Horn’s podcast in which he debates with Tim Gordon about this topic. Gordon’s argument centers on the Catechism of the Council of Trent and he claims because what it contains is doctrine, it cannot change:

“To train their children in the practice of virtue and to pay particular attention to their domestic concerns should also be especial objects of their attention. The wife should love to remain at home, unless compelled by necessity to go out; and she should never presume to leave home without her husband’s consent.”

Re: this thread’s specific subject, the above seems clear. (Note that I’m not advocating for it.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top