Yes, or they ran a family business and all the family helped out. Keeping the family close. One thing many of the 1930’s through 1950’s generation would say was, “mom was always home” and that was typically because so many were farmers and mom and dad were home or at least the mom was. It wasn’t until the 1960’s that more people went off to college than stayed home and helped out running the family farm.
Sadly, that is not the way it is today, farming is not the main wage earning, but children still need their parents and need the mother close.
Exactly, the average income for a family of 4 in the US today is $59,039. Average. When one considers the cost of living in various places, the societal pressure to buy a nice house, the need when living outside of urban areas to have a well maintained car, the simply cost of insurance, medical care, food, it is a wonder anyone can afford to live in a single family situation.
For those with above average income to feel that the rest of us are just not trying hard enough or are somehow sinning by doing what needs to get done, well, that feels rather uncharitable.
The irony is that a pre-VII pope (Pius XII) taught, in an encyclical no less, that Catholics are free to study modern theories of biological evolution (within the framework of Catholic teaching). I certainly hope Father doesn’t actually teach that it’s a “mortal sin” to believe in evolution, because if so he has condemned every Pope since the 1950s.
Let me give just one example from my own social circle where it’s clear that the default setting doesn’t fit perfectly.
We have a female friend who met her now-husband when she was a medical student. She was in her late twenties, he was in his early forties, and had retired from the military. He’d spent twenty years abusing his body in the Marine Corps, and wanted to just work a part time job and relax now that he had his pension. However, they decided he would keep working to support the family while she was in medical school. So, for a few years, he was the sole breadwinnner.
Then she finished medical school and residency, and started bringing home a very healthy salary. Now he’s gone back to being mostly retired, and is more or less a stay at home dad to their son. Between her salary as a physician and his military pension, they’re quite comfortable.
Is that the typical 1950s Catholic model? No, not at all. Does it work for their unique situation? Absolutely. They worked out what was best for their individual family. There are so many variables here. There aren’t one-size fits all answers.
I did not say that it is evolution, because it is not. What it is is an observation that proves all species are related by descent and that therefore they must have evolved one from the other. Like it or not you share 50% of your genetic material with your pot plant. You are related by descent. You have a common ancestor.
My interpretation? Fr Ripperger made the statement “it is a mortal sin for women to work outside the home without a sufficient reason”. This is not taught by the Church. That’s not an interpretation of anything.
I’m not interpreting. He did not say the above statement as a metaphor.
That was not my meaning; I apologise if it came off as such. You said to look at Pope Francis, I meant that I would not because he was not the topic of the thread. That’s all.
This may be true. Is it also fair to say that those who have a knee-jerk reaction to traditionalist preaching are, in general, likely to present what they say out of context and with the least charitable interpretation as possible so as to encourage others to dismiss their message?
I think that’s pretty arguable…teaching about mortal sin is exactly what a priest is supposed to do. And he has the education and grace behind it.
If, after sufficient reflection, you decide to reject Father’s non-binding statement, that’s up to you. I don’t think, however, that priests should be combing the CAF, looking for how they should word things so as to make everyone happy. In that path lies madness. Accept it or reject it but the man has the right to present it however he wants. Again, if you have issue with it, present it IN FULL CONTEXT and your reasons why. Accept that not everyone will agree with you. But don’t put words in other’s mouths. I’m also pretty sure that those who have don’t appreciate traditionalist views would have something to say about it no matter HOW he put it.
Children are sent to preschool at, at the earliest, three years old. More often, children start school at 5 years old. It is a matter of timing and maturity. A six month old is not developed enough to spend time away from mother without the risk of harm. A 3 y.o. may be or may not be. A 5 year old usually is but also may not be in which case alternative plans could be made, assuming all things equally. It is definitely a concern to expect a 3 y.o. to be ready to accept academic instruction. Most pre-schools are, or should be, designed to develop social and emotional regulation skills within a play environment that also exposes children to colors, numbers, letters and shapes.
@TheLittleLady Indeed, women have always worked, just not worked outside the home in an environment where they couldn’t leave or contact their children for 8-10 hours a day. Or in an environment where they are penalized for sick children, breast pumping, or working overtime on a moment’s notice.
I love this
Quite true and to the detriment of ourselves and our future generations…
Yes, it would be. But that’s not what was said. Can’t ignore that “with sufficient reason”…that covers a lot of territory.
Perhaps you could show me my interpretation then, because I cannot see it.
Just a simple statement. There was no rhetorical resource or figure of style.
“The husband has a right that the woman fulfill her domestic outlet responsibilities. He has to work and therefore he cannot take care of the home and the children…In fact the right of the children is so grave because it has such a profound impact on the moral formation of children and therefore their salvation that it is a mortal sin for a woman to work outside the home without a sufficient reason. Now think of what that means. Think of the injustice we all worry about all the other injustices that are occurring in our society, but women are constantly doing this in relation to their children. Not all women of course, many woman are very faithful to their obligations.”
I will wait for Father Ripperger to find the citation in the CCC that it is a grave sin that a mother has a job before I tell my wife she must quit her job and we have to move and (because she works for the school system) find good medical insurance for our family, because we are all on her plan, which is very good by modern American standards.
Teachers are raising your kids as well. The people in proximity to your child, influence your child. They participate in formation.
Time spent away from your child is time in which those around your child engage in this formation process, knowingly or unknowingly, willingly or unwillingly. Sometimes they are paid as they engage in this process. Teachers and daycare workers are examples of this.