Because at least the child isn’t raised by non-family members, in that situation.
I’ve listened to a bit of Father Ripperger and I have not heard him say that what the OP mentioned are mortal sins.
It is true that laymen were not to have public debates regarding theology according to the old form of canon law. But that’s just his opinion concerning whether that should be put into affect today.
I think folks are taking his words out of context.
Your kid going to daycare doesn’t mean the daycare workers are “raising” him or her, anymore than the kindergarten teacher becomes the parent.
I have listened to Father Ripperger many times and I have not heard him dispute helicentrism. Religious liberty by constitutional rights verses how God wants us to worship Him are two different things. The government gives us religious freedom but no where does God say, it is just fine to worship me any way you want. The Catholic church fulfills the OT religous worship and God was very specific on how the Israelites were to worship Him and when instituting the Catholic church God shows He was still in charge of how to worship Him, but the anti-woman thing - lol. Really?
When did it become anti-woman to instruct a mother to care for her children, to put her children before her career. That is the problem of today and that is the issue being addressed. Children need their mothers. That is never more evident than it is today in our society. They need their fathers also but in a different way than they need their mothers.
Someone else once said women should care for their homes and families - the Apostle Paul and KIng Solomon
The aged women,…teach the young women to be wise, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, sober, having a care of the house, gentle, obedient to their husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed. Titus 2
A wise woman buildeth her house. Proverbs 14
Yes, just try and get the things out of your childs mind that you disagree with that the day care or kindgergarten teacher has taught your children.
At a very young age children bond more with their mothers. Fathers bonding is important also and they need to be there, but in a different way. Children also need to see their father caring for the family.
Then what does it mean?
So would it be better for neither parent to see the children, who are being raised by people who are not their parents (day care)?
I’d be interested in seeing a source for this if you have one.
At times working moms is a necessity but that should be the exception not the rule and today in our society it is becoming the rule. It is not about privilege. I have known families that lived very meagerly just so the mom could be with the kids or she worked only part time while the father worked full time and in the end they were very glad she was able to be there with them.
They are taking care of children during a substantial portion of the day. Call it whatever you want. For children too young to be in school, as this is a conversation about day care and not school, I call it raising.
It’s daycare. Do you think your elementary school teacher became your parent when you turned six?
Google LaLeche League for one place, Couple to Couple League. Many articles in both places or just google maternal child bonding. There is a lot out there.
Great, but we could all cite examples of success and failures among all sorts of familial arrangements. It’s annoying when people presume to dictate to everyone what the best arrangement is, when that’s a prudential judgement for the individual parents.
Why do you keep bringing up elementary school teachers?
The day care worker takes the place of the parent. What do parents do for children of that age? Do they not ‘raise’ them?
Does your argument revolve around my use of the word ‘raise’ or is there more substance to it?
Did I not say in my first post on this topic I wasn’t addressing the sinfulness of it?
OP should link or cite where Fr. R said this before you call it a ‘scumbag move.’
I think we need to make sure we’re using the same definition of “evolution”.
I find that when most (if not all) religious conservatives (particularly Fundamentalists) use the word “evolution”, they use it to mean the means of human creation where humans evolved from lower life forms rather than being created in a word, as described in Scripture. When I bring up the ability for bacteria to develop resistance to certain antibiotics, or for certain butterfly species in London to change color over multiple generations so they more closely match the soot-stained smokestacks and roofs, they tell me (in all seriousness) that that’s not evolution, but natural selection. In their own minds, they have drawn a distinction between this “thing” – evolution – and a process – “natural selection”.
Of course not. But that would mean they are both working 24 hours a day. Not likely.
It would be better to quote something thus priest wrote it said, in context. Or maybe quote the most intelligent, brief brief supportive summary of his teaching you can find. Then disagree with it if you want.
I will agree with that to a point. You can put money and things before your children and then it becomes a moral issue, but working out of necessity and as the exception yes and that is what I have heard Father Ripperger say in many of his talks.
Also, as a woman I completely disagree that it is “anti-woman” to instruct women to be at home and care for their children. Many women that work fulltime would love to stay home with their children or just work part time because it is something God has instilled inside of her. Denying her that privilege is "anti-woman".
Did I not make it clear in my first post I was not addressing sin, but I was addressing the ideals of a situation?
It is anti-woman to teach generations of women that it is beneath them to stay home and raise children and that their sole purpose is to pursue a career.