| Author | |
Lisbet
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 07 2006
Location: Michigan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2706
|
| Posted: March 14 2006 at 11:58am | IP Logged
|
 |
|
I've been following the other threads pretty closely. It's been very interesting reading so many personal experiences and points of view. I'm afraid I'm way less articulate than most of you. (and I do wish to apologize for me rant on the other thread, I came across so negative, and I'm really not that much of a downer!  )
Here is another avenue that I thought might be interesting to discuss.
What about all those faithful Catholic married couples that were in their childbearing years before all the very scientific information about fertility awareness was available? I'm sure we've all run into those elderly women that smile at us as we leave daily mass and say "I had 12 children dear, God bless your family" (last year I met one of these women that had 22 children!!) Were the social norms different then? Was it just part of being a married Catholic? ~ ya know, part of the Catholic identity? Do you suppose those families agonized over having another child? Were they frustrated over their lack of 'options'. Were they teased and taunted by their families, neighbors, and check out clerks, or worse yet, fellow parishioners?
It was said in another thread that God doesn't call every couple to have a large family. I do agree with that in cases of natural infertility. But, is He really only calling a handful of Catholic married couples to have more than 5 children? Is it coincidence that the 'acceptable' number of children in Catholic circles is simultaniously growing smaller with the secular world?
I don't know ~ these are just some thoughts that have been floating around in my head after reading all this discussion.
__________________
Lisa, wife to Tony,
Mama to:
Nick, 17
Abby, 15
Gabe, 13
Isaac, 11
Mary, 10
Sam, 9
Henry, 7
Molly, 6
Mark, 5
Greta, 3
Cecilia born 10.29.10
Josephine born 6.11.12
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Erica Sanchez
Forum All-Star
Joined: March 05 2005
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1538
|
| Posted: March 14 2006 at 12:12pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Lisbet,
I also wanted to share that I know a family out here in California that had 17 children and now almost half of their children have over 10 children themselves with several others well on their way to that number!! The mom and dad of 17 now have over 100 grandchildren!! So, they are the other side of the coin....not much has changed for them....what did they do differently? They are an amazing family, BTW!!!!! :)
__________________
Have a beautiful and fun day!
Erica in San Diego
(dh)Cash, Emily, Grace, Nicholas, Isabella, Annie, Luke, Max, Peter, 2 little souls ++, and sweet Rose who is legally ours!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Jenny
Forum Pro
Joined: Dec 20 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 489
|
| Posted: March 14 2006 at 12:49pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Just a brief thought...a couple of things immediately came to me
Back in those days, The husbands living wage was enough to support a large family, although thingswere still tight. "Now a days" the mans wages plus retailers prices reflect dual imcome families.
Back then, you all lived in a specific area, near your Parish Church that also had a solid, orthodox school. The task of homeschooling was not a must & you were not the "Catholics" next door w/alot of kids, you were the "_" family. You know, you blended.
These are not excuses, just the things that came to mind quickly.
Jenny
__________________
Jenny
Chris' wife and momma of 7. My blog: The Littlest Way--Bible Journaling, Inspiring Bible Quotes, Daily Affirmations, Prayer Journaling & photography
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Mary G
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 07 2005
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5790
|
| Posted: March 14 2006 at 1:16pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
4mothermary wrote:
Just a brief thought...a couple of things immediately came to me
Back in those days, The husbands living wage was enough to support a large family, although thingswere still tight. "Now a days" the mans wages plus retailers prices reflect dual imcome families.
Back then, you all lived in a specific area, near your Parish Church that also had a solid, orthodox school. The task of homeschooling was not a must & you were not the "Catholics" next door w/alot of kids, you were the "_" family. You know, you blended.
These are not excuses, just the things that came to mind quickly.
Jenny |
|
|
Jenny -- I think you're right -- on top of that is the VERY secular idea that we need so much -- clothes and cars and toys and STUFF! Maybe this is on my mind alot as we begin to divest in order to move to Europe, but it's amazing the stuff you really don't HAVE to have. I think back then, people waited for things, only bought things at bdays and Crhsitmas, didn't go out as much, etc.
I know, when I stopped working corporate that my budget skyrocketed cuz I wasn't taking the kids to McD or soemwhere for a quick bite.....that stuff gets expensive!
__________________
MaryG
3 boys (22, 12, 8)2 girls (20, 11)
my website that combines my schooling, hand-knits work, writing and everything else in one spot!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
MicheleQ
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 23 2005
Location: Pennsylvania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2193
|
| Posted: March 14 2006 at 1:26pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Mary G. wrote:
| Maybe this is on my mind alot as we begin to divest in order to move to Europe, but it's amazing the stuff you really don't HAVE to have. |
|
|
Mary,
Living in Europe is such an eye opener isn't it? Even in so called "wealthy" countries they don't live in nearly the amount of excess that we do!
I miss that.
God bless,
__________________
Michele Quigley
wife to my prince charming and mom of 10 in Lancaster County, PA USA
http://michelequigley.com
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
teachingmyown
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 20 2005
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5128
|
| Posted: March 14 2006 at 1:39pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Jenny,
My thoughts were along the same line as yours. We really do live in different times. While I believe that God is calling all of us to be open to life, not just the handful that Lisa mentioned, I do think that that openness does look different today.
First of all, most of us didn't start having babies in our late teens. Secondly, as Jenny pointed out, the demands of a large family in our two-income, fast-paced society are enormous. Throw in homeschooling and I think twelve children is beyond heroic, more like saintly.
Even as we await the birth of our seventh child, and have always been open to God's Will, I know that it will be a stretch. A blessing, to be certain, but also a stretch.I would never say no to another child so that my other kids could have brand-new clothes, or toys, or an assortment of lessons and activities. But I pray constantly for God's grace and wisdom that we will be able to provide a balance.
My thoughts are so jumbled these days. I am sorry. It all makes sense in my head!
__________________
In Christ,
Molly
wife to Court & mom to ds '91, dd '96, ds '97, dds '99, '01, '03, '06, and dss '07 and 01/20/11
Remembering Today
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
JennGM
Forum Moderator
Joined: Feb 07 2005
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 17702
|
| Posted: March 14 2006 at 6:53pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I posted something it disappeared! 
Anyway, one thing that has changed, mentioned in Covenanted Happiness is the standard of living doesn't include children. "Children are not part of one's standard of life: a family is not "better off" if it has more children." ...."Married couples today seem to find it harder to recognize that children are values of a totally unique order, that to deprive their present children, or themselves, of further members within the family makrs a serious limitation or reduction in one's standard of living, and that one only devalues human effort and sacrifice if one works for comfort, prestige, or possessions rather than for one's children."
Another thought, as I was discussing with dh at dinner tonight crossed my mind. College is almost considered a necessity in today's society, and tuition and board costs have  exploded. That's a newer wrinkle in planning finances, and everyone has different opinions as to who pays for what.
__________________
Jennifer G. Miller
Wife to  & ds1  '03 & ds2  '07
Family in Feast and Feria
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
kingvozzo
Forum All-Star
Joined: March 28 2005
Location: Maine
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2653
|
| Posted: March 14 2006 at 7:30pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
jenngm67 wrote:
Anyway, one thing that has changed, mentioned in Covenanted Happiness is the standard of living doesn't include children. "Children are not part of one's standard of life: a family is not "better off" if it has more children." ...."Married couples today seem to find it harder to recognize that children are values of a totally unique order, that to deprive their present children, or themselves, of further members within the family makrs a serious limitation or reduction in one's standard of living, and that one only devalues human effort and sacrifice if one works for comfort, prestige, or possessions rather than for one's children." |
|
|
I can't wait to get my copy of this book--he really seems to have great things to think about.
jenngm67 wrote:
| Another thought, as I was discussing with dh at dinner tonight crossed my mind. College is almost considered a necessity in today's society, and tuition and board costs have exploded. That's a newer wrinkle in planning finances, and everyone has different opinions as to who pays for what. |
|
|
This one gets me so upset! Not that I have any answers, of course. I'm watching my sister go through the college process with her oldest son, and it has me stunned what the colleges expect her to pay. She has another one coming down the pike to college in 3 years, and it's just an impossibility to pay. And they're very much wanting to send their sons to Catholic colleges, but they're sooooo out of reach.
I do think that college costs (or general education $$) are one of the biggest concerns people have with regard to having more children. the issue is farther-reaching than "we will" or "we won't" pay for college, because college debt can be suffocating.
Which, I think, is another change that's affecting people's willingness to have larger families (if they're able). If you are saddled with large educational debt, that compels many people to postpone having little ones. It's a cycle, and an ugly one
__________________
Noreen
Wife to Ed
Mom to 4 great kids and 10 sweet ones in Our Lady's arms
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Mary G
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 07 2005
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5790
|
| Posted: March 15 2006 at 6:13am | IP Logged
|
|
|
On the college question -- most of the private (especially Catholic) schools have endowments and tons of aid they can give. Often you have to really research, but there's always lots of aid monies that go unclaimed or unawarded becuase folks don't ask. And regardless of your fianncila situation -- fill-out the FAFSA and apply to the school for financial aid -- loans, grants, work study. This all can help. The schools look for the student/family to come to them -- they won't search you out (unless your student has gotten a 2200+ on the SAT -- mine probably won't  )
It just bothers me that most of these EXPECT the parents to kick in some of the money. Dh and I are strong believers in the "they're 18 and need to do as much on their own as possible" school of thought. We'll help out, but we can't support the adults as well as the children....The student has to "own" his/her college education -- we don't tell them what to study or "become" (altho I do know some parents who do) and we don't pay for it. But as we would do when they're married and have kids -- if they need something, we're here.
__________________
MaryG
3 boys (22, 12, 8)2 girls (20, 11)
my website that combines my schooling, hand-knits work, writing and everything else in one spot!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Lisbet
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 07 2006
Location: Michigan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2706
|
| Posted: March 15 2006 at 7:46am | IP Logged
|
|
|
What was stated in the book makes alot of sense, and I surely see that in our culture. Obviously then, Catholics have bought into this way of thinking too ~ that seems to be what has changed. I wonder why that has changed. Could it be the promotion of Natural Family Planning as "Safe, Healthy, Effective, and Moral"? Maybe it's the way the term "Responsible Parenthood" is thrown around in Catholic circles? In previous generations, wasn't "Responsible Parenthood" a given? It didn't have to be defined, explained, etc... You had babies, and you raised them in the faith, with a strong work ethic, values, morals, etc... You did the best you had with what God gave you, that's just how it was. (...and maybe I'm just dreaming about how it was...)
While I totally understand what Msgr. Burke is saying in his book, I still wonder what is was that open the gates to this way of thinking in Catholic culture. KWIM?
__________________
Lisa, wife to Tony,
Mama to:
Nick, 17
Abby, 15
Gabe, 13
Isaac, 11
Mary, 10
Sam, 9
Henry, 7
Molly, 6
Mark, 5
Greta, 3
Cecilia born 10.29.10
Josephine born 6.11.12
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Genevieve
Forum All-Star
Joined: April 02 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 529
|
| Posted: March 15 2006 at 2:46pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
When I read this, I thought of a few people close to me who are leaning towards not getting married and not having children at all. The common theme it seems is that they don't enjoy children. Does anyone else have that experience? When they are with us, and I only have two small ones, they talk about how they love being with our kids but always with the clause that they personally couldn't live with them. It seems to also be reflected in some main stream parenting books. Children appear to be whiny, manipulative, easily bored, impulsive. How do you show someone that children are a joy. How do you remind yourself that they are indeed a blessing?
__________________
Genevieve
The Good Within
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
teachingmom
Forum All-Star
Virginia Bluebells
Joined: Feb 16 2005
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2120
|
| Posted: March 15 2006 at 10:48pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I've been pondering Lisa's original questions in this thread for a day now. When I look at the committed, orthodox Catholic families that I know, most of them have at least 4 children so far (unless there are fertility difficulties). Many of them have between 5 and 10 children, and their families are still growing. I honestly don't see much of a problem with openess to life in the Catholics who have been "fully evangelized". So I'd say that one of the first steps in bringing back a culture of life is to bring the typical "Catholic in the pew" into a committed, personal relationship with Christ and the Catholic Church.
As for comparing current times with the past, I have a thought. Let's say that before the middle of the 20th century, most Catholics did not attempt to regulate the spacing of children. I am not a history expert, but from my limited knowledge it seems that even in the past, not that many people had what I will call "extra-large" families. (By that I mean, say, 10 or more children.) I'm not saying they didn't exist, or that there were not more of them than there are today, but I am just saying that it does not seem to me that they were the norm. (Am I very off base here?) Much of that was due to the lack of modern medical knowledge that led to infant and child death on a fairly regular basis. How many times do we read about the life of an historical figure and find that his or her mother had many children, but only 5 or 7 lived?
Now here is where I am hypothesizing. Could it be that just when modern medicine has almost put an end to infant and child death and made it the norm to have entire families of children grow up into healthy adults, that God has given us the gift of NFP as a way to space children prudently? (Please understand that I am speaking of the proper use of NFP here -- with complete openess to life, if God chooses to allow one to conceive, with a desire for many children, and with much prayer and prudent thought about whether one has "just" or "grave" reasons to postpone pregnancy for a time.)
I really believe that not every mother (or father) is equipped to handle an extra-large family. The difficulty may be physical, mental, emotional, or financial (and I'm speaking of serious financial situations--not just the inability to have a large family and still drive an expensive car or take great vacations). I really wonder if the timing of the discovery of medical knowledge regarding fertility is not just coincidental, but has come at just the right point in history to play a role that nature has played in the past? Just some thoughts to ponder.
__________________
~Irene (Mom to 6 girls, ages 7-19)
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Rachel May
Forum All-Star
Joined: June 24 2005
Location: Kansas
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2057
|
| Posted: March 16 2006 at 1:14pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Genevieve wrote:
| The common theme it seems is that they don't enjoy children. Does anyone else have that experience? |
|
|
I remember my mom saying many times, "I enjoy my own children just not other people's children." And I thought that was ok.
Then as I had my own, I started to realize that this was a terrible attitude. As with so many bad habits I have, to get over it I have to repeat to myself over and over, "Children are a blessing. ALL children are a blessing." And then I try to act that way.
__________________
Rachel
Thomas and Anthony (10), Maria (8), Charles (6), Cecilia (5), James (3), and Joseph (1)
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
teachingmom
Forum All-Star
Virginia Bluebells
Joined: Feb 16 2005
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2120
|
| Posted: March 16 2006 at 2:50pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
teachingmom wrote:
| I am not a history expert, but from my limited knowledge it seems that even in the past, not that many people had what I will call "extra-large" families. (By that I mean, say, 10 or more children.) I'm not saying they didn't exist, or that there were not more of them than there are today, but I am just saying that it does not seem to me that they were the norm. (Am I very off base here?) |
|
|
I am replying to my own post here to make a correction. I have to laugh at the timing, because the day after I wrote the above quote, I happened to be reading aloud a chapter in the 5th volume of A History of US that includes the following:
"Ten children was not unusual for a 19th-century American family. However, big as they were, families were smaller than they had been in the 18th century. They would continue to get smaller. No one was quite sure why." (Liberty for All? p. 138)
So maybe extra-large families were the norm? Or possibly the book was referring to the number of children born in typical families, not the number that survived childhood. Anyway, I wanted to share the information, since it seems at odds with what I wrote last night.
__________________
~Irene (Mom to 6 girls, ages 7-19)
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
humanaevitae
Forum Pro
Joined: May 31 2005
Location: Minnesota
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 411
|
| Posted: March 16 2006 at 2:56pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I have known some people that don't want to have kids because they personally think they wouldn't be good parents. They have such high and unrealistic expectations for parents that they know they could never meet them. Some of this attitude is probably from their own childhood hangups and some is probably from society that puts such pressure on parents.
As far as not enjoying children I really do try and emphasize the you do feel different about your own. God gives us specially graces to "handle" our own children.
Growing up I was never into dolls, etc...Although as the oldest I was around children a lot and knew how to take care of them I did not "enjoy" them. Yes I knew kids were a blessing but I was secretly afraid I wouldn't be a good parent as I was never one to beg to hold a baby, etc...Finally when my first was born I broke down to my mom and worriedly confessed that I didn't feel this rush of emotion so often talked about when your baby is born. All my fears came out. She was great in sharing that that can be normal. I was just learning how to be a mom and hadn't yet experienced all the blessings it brings. Just because I was use to kids, knew how to take care of them, and realized their value didn't mean that I would instantly "love" them. It was true and as time went on of course I did start feeling the emotion of love for my baby. Since I was already in "mom mode" I did instantly experience love for my next child, etc..
I think this is more common that people realize. Especially as many people aren't even use to being around children as they may only have 1-2 siblings and their extended families are geographically spread out. Because of this I make it a point to tell young people that one's own children will be different. (whether they are one's biological or adopted children). Just because you find your neighbors children annoying at times doesn't mean that you won't love and smile at your own. And it's funny, once you have your own, the neightbor's children aren't as annoying any more!
__________________
Nicole-Zane 10, Elizabeth 7, Xavier 4, and John Patrick 2
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Genevieve
Forum All-Star
Joined: April 02 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 529
|
| Posted: March 16 2006 at 3:18pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
humanaevitae wrote:
| Finally when my first was born I broke down to my mom and worriedly confessed that I didn't feel this rush of emotion so often talked about when your baby is born. |
|
|
I experienced this too and I felt so guilty that I didn't have that motherly love people seem to naturally have. Honestly, I sometimes still feel that way. The emotion comes and goes but the resolution stays regardless of what my heart feels or lacks. I hope my actions gives a different message though. I constantly have to surround myself with mother culture books. I'm hoping every day reading will translate to every day thoughts and actions. For me, it's a will and a habit thing. *sigh*
__________________
Genevieve
The Good Within
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Martha
Forum All-Star
Joined: Aug 25 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2291
|
| Posted: March 16 2006 at 3:32pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
several thoughts here...
Comparing past to modern situations: It has always been cyclinical to some degree. The better off the times seem to be the easier it was to get permission to marry for example and the healthier the families could be - resulting in marrying younger, living longer, and having more and healthier babies. Hard times do the opposite. This was the case way before modern medicene.
Children usually were considered de facto as part of marriage. Although the history texts mentioned may say families of 19 were not unusual, I really question how accurate that is. Yeah, there might have been 19, but all with the same mom/dad and all living to puberty? I doubt it. Parents died and so did children. I'd have to do some searching to offer a link, but historicly the average family size was 5 children living to adulthood. Now, that may mean the parents had double digit pregnancies for all I know, but it's doubtfull that at any one time they had double digits of dc. It was not as common as some try to convince us.
I'll give my mom's family as a prime example even though they weren't Catholic. She was 1 of 12 children born to her mother. However, 1 died before age 1, 2 died by age 5, 2 died before adulthood, and they were over several years during 4 different marriages (the men kept dying!) for my grandmother. So, yes she had 12 dc. But at no point did she ever have 12 children in her home. She also married very young the first time at age 13.
I think it all boils down to worry/fear having more control in our lives these days. Many of our grandparents just didn't worry about these things as much as we do.
__________________
Martha
mama to 7 boys & 4 girls
Yes, they're all ours!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
JennGM
Forum Moderator
Joined: Feb 07 2005
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 17702
|
| Posted: March 16 2006 at 3:48pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I've been pondering this thread. I have come up with a long list of things that have changed other influences that it would be too hard to name just one. So I'll throw out many ideas I've had. I'm making them talking points, because there is no way I could cover all the areas and branch-offs, but to just give a bit of an idea. Bear with me, some are generalizations. And of course, this is long. I can't seem to ever be brief. My humble apologies. I have had these thoughts rolling around in my head for a few days....
(1) Since the Industrial Revolution, the end of the 19th c., the family unit has changed. The type of work that a husband/father did removed him from the family. Flee from the country, cities expanded, crowded living, unhealthy living for large families. But children then were an asset. If they could work, they brought in more money for the family.
But gradually it became just the father worked away from the home, and later during WWII, more women joined the work force.
(2) Planned obsolescence, marketing, materialism. "Me, me, me." Whether we like it or not, this has affected us. After the Depression there is more of a "disposable" mindset, rather than before is use it until it breaks, fix it, mend it, squeeze the life out of everything. And when the life of something is gone, it's made useful for another purpose! And living self-sufficiently...that is an almost impossible task!
(3) Along a similar vein, the 1920s was a pivotal time in America. I found this brief History of Social Security which describes quite well the changes. "The year 1920 was a historical tipping-point. In that year, for the first time in our nation's history, more people were living in cities than on farms." Families were moving away from each other, so there was no family network to take care of the family. This is key!!!!
By 1935 Social Security was implemented. FDR's influence of the federal government solving the problems for the local community has changed the mindset of many families.
Post WWII even more people fled the country to the city. Most large families were from the country.
The 1950s brought wealth and enjoyment to most people...consumerism and materialism reared its ugly head.
But all this taxes, city living, dependence on outside food chains and sources, electricity, education...everything does cost more! We cannot deny that the cost of living, even if we reduce our "standard" to less than the typical American is still higher than before.
(4) White, over processed bread. Had to put that in. But it is a key point: our health is down. Despite all the advances in science, our food sources are not as nutritious as before. We have more chemicals, more processed foods, and our soils are becoming depleted of nutrients.
(5) Feminism, birth control movement...even if we have rejected these thoughts we aren't immune to all the effects. Women entered the workplace. Still most living in the city....cost of living is higher in urban areas, making family size go down. "Contraceptive mentality" or the "culture of Death" is pervasive in so many areas, that we have to stop and analyze our thinking sometimes before we can recognize it.
(6) I'll bring back the college point. Women now are doing the higher education, and usually enter the workforce. People are delaying marriage until later. Even the couples that intend on having large families usually don't start until after they graduate from college -- usually age 22. That's 4 years later (and could translate into 2-4 less babies) than the earlier wedding date of age 18.
(6) Changes in Church "thinking" -- The Church didn't change, but over the centuries there are heresies and errors that trickle down through the pulpit. The average couple in the pew before 1960 were obedient to whatever the priest told them. Most Catholics sent their children to parochial school and were taught by nuns. But the common thinking: to be a saint you needed to be a nun or priest. Not much on being saintly wives and husbands.
For the most part, their Catholic training was true to the teaching, but not getting to the roots or souls to inspire most to develop a relationship with Christ. It was still a bit Jansenistic "fear of hell", rules and regulations. The Liturgical Movement had many good intentions in trying to present the faith to the common man in the pew. There was need of renewal.
But then the 1960s came, with so much upheaval, the "me" generation. The timing of Vatican II has the misfortune of happening at this era. Since so many faithful didn't know things on their own, what was presented as "Spirit of Vatican II" was accepted. Nuns shed their habits and fled their convents. Teaching was watered down. What was previously taught in schools with weak areas now became just fluff and nothingness. Parents had depended on the schools for the Catholic teaching, and didn't realize the change until too late.
My point here -- we generally don't have a good Catholic education or guidance in these areas. There has been a shift since Casti Connubi to explain that there are TWO ends in marriage, on equal footing, procreative and unitive (personalist). Canon Law 1917 said "The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children." While the teaching didn't change, the language did, Canon Law 1983 says marriage "which of its own very nature is ordered to the well-being of the spouses and to the procreation and upbringing of children" putting them on equal footing.
But not hearing from the pulpit that having children and educating them in the Catholic faith was an obligation, I think many people don't realize that it's still the Church's teaching!
(7) All these intermingle with one another...but one of the biggest influences would be the modern doctor, Dr. Spock and the introduction of formula! We lost one or two generations in regulating baby's sleeping, eating, lack of bonding...giving formula instead of nursing. That's why there's such a pendulum swing to Attachment parenting. We don't know how to bond with our babies. Some of it comes naturally, but because it's been suppressed for a few generations, our parents and grandparents can't teach us these things. It's an uphill battle!
=========================
So our current generation is working on lack of extended family, lack of good nutrition , lack of solid Catholic education, lack of deep spiritual roots, lack of example and witness from other large families, lack of the example of sacrifice!, lack of true mother culture example and even lack of example of how to live frugally and independently. (Learning to sew, cook, clean, garden, be a homemaker, be a mother in the old way (nursing) are lost arts!)
Clear as mud?  Anyone who made reading all the way to here, Kudos to you!
__________________
Jennifer G. Miller
Wife to & ds1 '03 & ds2 '07
Family in Feast and Feria
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
amyable
Forum All-Star
Joined: March 07 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3798
|
| Posted: March 16 2006 at 4:20pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
jenngm67 wrote:
.... We don't know how to bond with our babies. Some of it comes naturally, but because it's been suppressed for a few generations, our parents and grandparents can't teach us these things. It's an uphill battle!
=========================
So our current generation is working on lack of extended family, lack of good nutrition , lack of solid Catholic education, lack of deep spiritual roots, lack of example and witness from other large families, lack of the example of sacrifice!, lack of true mother culture example and even lack of example of how to live frugally and independently. (Learning to sew, cook, clean, garden, be a homemaker, be a mother in the old way (nursing) are lost arts!)
|
|
|
Read it all the way and agreed!  I want to add to this point I quoted above and your summary, at least from personal experience.
Being the youngest of two, I didn't learn anything about babies and young children growing up (OK, I do have mitigating circumstances in that my parents could not have any more kids, but they refused to adopt more - I asked them to, lol- saying Two Is Enough!). Add non-exposure to children with parents who refused to teach me home skills because they could do it better themselves, and I am one lost puppy when it comes to homemaking and child rearing.  My mom even refuses to teach me things NOW saying its none of her business how I raise my kids, etc. She means well, she just doesn't want to "interfere". But I WANT her to!  I know other women of my generation feel the same way. We had little example growing up and little guidance now. I really do feel like I'm climbing a mountain blindfolded most days! Don't get me started on lack of spiritual formation ...
(or the fact that when I *do* embrace the homemaker, mother of many ideal, I'm mocked...  )
__________________
Amy
mom of 5, ages 6-16, and happy wife of
The Highly Sensitive Homeschooler
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
JennGM
Forum Moderator
Joined: Feb 07 2005
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 17702
|
| Posted: March 16 2006 at 4:41pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Me again...don't throw tomatoes! But I forgot to post this thought. It follows the similar vein about lack of guidance as mother/wife/homemaker.
I see a huge shift on the emphasis of our vocations. More focus has been placed on our avocation. Vocation is our primary calling: single, married, religious. Our work, what we do within the vocation is our avocation. Part of this comes from feminist mindset creeping in -- women can be anything, not JUST a wife and mother. But vocation is also downplayed for the man. It's about what you do and where you go in your career, how much you make, where you went to school...things that don't matter.
So if our vocation isn't emphasized, explained, nurtured, we are left many times grasping at other "busyness" to make us feel "fulfilled." And this busyness does cut down on family, nurturing and bearing babies time.
__________________
Jennifer G. Miller
Wife to & ds1 '03 & ds2 '07
Family in Feast and Feria
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
|
|
4Real Forums : Mothering and Family Life
Topic: What has changed?
