Christian Parents and Pre-Teen Guides to Sex

I've been in hibernation lately, I know. I do spend more time than I should online, but as I've mentioned before, I'm trying to limit myself to the sort of fleeting thoughts that lend themselves to Facebook status updates, and channel the complex meditative asides into something that might pass as academically productive. We'll see how that works out.

[For fear of Google, I have comment moderation on]

Recently, however, we encountered some issues with my son (now 12) that necessitated the opening of a pretty weighty subject--how to address topics related to sexuality in an informative, sex-positive, yet Catholic Christian context. And, well, I want him to have a book or books to turn to when curiosity arises and he doesn't necessarily feel like getting a parental lecture--because too often, I think, we give too much information and bore the heck out of him, truthfully. . . So while we are open to questions, and correct misperceptions or misbehavior, explain when necessary, I think a good book is a good thing to have. But where to go? He's younger than the target age for the Theology of the Body for Teens resources, and most of the Catholic resources that I've seen for younger ages address the spiritual aspects of where babies come from, and feelings of love, etc. Basically, I wasn't finding much actual information about anatomy, biological functions, adolescence--you know, the basics! Perhaps I wasn't looking in the right places, but I'm pretty good at looking, and I wasn't finding. So I looked at the mainstream/secular resources, which of course, went in the opposite direction.

I believe that even if I *wanted* to affirm, promote, and emphasize use of birth control, as I would have at one point but do not now, I would still think that 12 is too young. He knows that birth control exists. Last year, he asked me whether there was a kind of medicine that a woman could take to prevent her from having a baby. I said yes, there was, and explained the Church's position on contraception in basic terms. At this stage, I don't want a book that details the various methods of contraception, though I am not--by any means--opposed to his learning about them. I will, of course, let him know our beliefs and the reason for those beliefs when the subject arises. He will make his decisions based on the information and moral guidance that we give to him, without the information being omitted.

The non-religious reference books on sexuality for youth that I found biologically informative and generally well-written also introduced and affirmed every type of sexual practice and lifestyle choice without any reference to the fact that not all lifestyle choices are condoned by all religions or *gasp!* parents. The books made it clear that these are exclusively personal matters and constructed implied child reader as independent from the beliefs and wishes of his/her parents. Basically, they provided an initiation into the happy utopia of adult sexuality. Ugh! You have no responsibility to anyone but yourself, so use protection and follow your impulses. Ugh! There was some stuff for girls about not being taken advantage of, some advice to empower girls to say no, but the overall message was that yes was good, too. Hence, the religious objection to sex ed: it not only provides information, it presents a certain world view and attitude toward sexuality that is largely self-serving and does not acknowledge that there may be other contexts for understanding human sexuality. This was not my experience of sex education, and I believe that this is because the average teacher of biology is not necessarily comfortable with promoting sexual practices to pre-teens or teens. There are, of course, exceptions, as the famous "condom-on-a-banana" anecdotes demonstrate. "Health" teachers might be a little more suspect. . .

So I admit that I do want to avoid the "You Might Be Gay--and It's Okay!" chapters. First, because however early homosexual feelings do appear, to confront and affirm them too early may lead to reckless lifestyle choices that are not informed by the wisdom and maturity of age. I would have scoffed to hear myself say such things when I was 17 (and a sophomore in college), but I can look back and see how my attitudes toward sexuality, which I developed largely on my own, matured over many years. Second, I want the Catholic version, that says, "You might be gay, and it's okay, because that's how God made you; but understand that the Church teaches that homosexual acts are inherently sinful, and you are called as a Catholic Christian to live according to this teaching. It may be that this is your cross to bear, and that you are called to a celibate life, and a life of service to others. This may be your special calling." I know it's unpopular. I have friends who are openly gay and live homosexual lifestyles, and they are dear friends, and I love them, but I have to acknowledge the teaching of my faith--which they do not share--in the instruction of my children, and my faith says that ALL lustful inclinations, ALL intercourse outside of the sanctity of marriage, and even some intercourse within the sanctity of marriage, is sinful. Men who aren't married, women who aren't married, homosexual and heterosexual--all are called to celibacy. Meanwhile, ALL people are called to chastity. It's a hard thing, so please don't blame me for it. I understand it and accept it, and will teach it to my children, as I am called to do.

Point is, of course, you're not going to find a book that says any of this. And with the Christian books, it's difficult to find a book that presents Christian teaching on alternative lifestyles sympathetically. Because taking something as a matter of faith, accepting and promoting an unpopular, politically incorrect teaching about sexuality, does not mean that you have to bulldoze through it and dismiss the feelings of those most intimately affected by the teaching. It does not mean that at all. So the book that had a table of contents arranged by "Thou Shall Nots"?--Uh uh. Not for me.

But, I did find some good books--two, to be exact. I apologize for making you read to the end of this to discover what they were. First, there was the "icebreaker"--the funny book, and to date, the only one of the two that my son has read (that he's admitted, anyway). It is called Lintball Leo's Not-so-Stupid Questions about Your Body. Published by ZonderKids, it is specifically geared towards boys, but there is one for girls, which I found first, and thought, "I wish there was one like this for boys!" and then looked on the next shelf. It provides information, does not insult the intelligence, does not preach, but does couch the physical, biological, and social questions that accompany puberty in a context that acknowledges nondenominational belief in God. Any divergences from Catholic teaching are very, very small--for example, it doesn't necessarily say that masturbation is a sin, but it does say that masturbation could become a part of sinful behavior or behavior patterns. The parent's objection to this statement could vary one way or another.

The second book I found had more information about sex--it read more like the mainstream sex ed books for teens/pre-teens in terms of what topics it covered, albeit from a Christian perspective. Again, I did not find the Christianity too prohibitive (that is, prohibitive in terms of "thou shall nots"), but do consider that I was looking for a minimally didactic book explaining sexuality within a Christian context. The book is titled, Sex and the New You, and is part of the Learning About Sex series published by Concordia Publishing House that is intended for children in various stages of curiosity about their bodies. The particular title I purchased is "For Young Men ages 13-15"--again, gender specific. There is a girls' version, and the difference is in the anatomical and social emphases. Each gender's version has a chapter relating to the anatomical features of and changes being experienced by the other, so the chapter "About Girls and Women" discussed female anatomy including menstruation--and has a drawing of a naked lady, to boot! And the glossary includes "clitoris"! ;) Emphasis is on respecting the bodies of others as well as yourself. I picked the age 13-15 volume because the younger volume was mostly centered on reproduction, and that was not the issue at hand. We were ready for a more mature set of subjects. But there is even a volume for ages 4-6, in picture book format, though I only noted it with passing interest. They are marketed as part of a home school or Christian school curriculum, or for individual use. The use of Bible verses was more extensive, but very tastefully done. I was less impressed with the title that was one "stage" down (all about reproduction), but each book has a different author, and it may well have been because it was not what I was looking for at the time. Still, I debated before choosing one over the other. Very occasionally, I disagree with generalizations about gender roles, but in general this is handled very well. The chapter on differences between men and women emphasizes that physical differences do not dictate differences in ability.

So that was a learning experience for me a couple of weeks ago, and hopefully yielded some information that will be helpful to others--and maybe I also provided some insight into what concerns Christian parents have about teaching sex ed to their kids. ;)

God's House

Over the summer, Doodle attended the child development center at our parish 3 days/week from 9-2:30. She was in a class with 2's, 3's, 4's, and 5's, in a Montessori-like environment. After a while, I started noticing something. . . Doodle would occasionally tell me about Jesus. "That's Jesus!" with a nod and wide, knowing eyes, pointing, usually I think, to a crucifix. Sometimes she would say, "A Jesus. A God." ("A" or "ah" approximating "it's" or "that's" until recently.) A day or two ago, she found a reproduction of an antique print of the Last Supper. Jesus is holding up bread, in the shape of the Host, representing the institution of the Eucharist. "Who's this?" Doodle asks. "Jesus," I reply. "Yes, Jesus," she says with certainty, nodding. She then proceeds to ask about the apostles, who occupy the edges of the image, though with less interest.

This evening, we got pizza from Papa John's. The franchise we ordered from, for pick-up, was a scant block away from the priests' residence, not two blocks from the church that is the student parish for the university and community college in the area. As we were waiting 5 min. before going in to check on the pizza order, the church bells rang. Doodle perked up, eyes wide, and said, "Listen!" Then she said something through her pacifier that sounded kind of like "God." I wasn't sure, but I started telling my husband about the influence of the church preschool. Then she said again, with excitement, "God! God!" So I asked, "God?" "Yes!" As my husband turned the car around to pull alongside the pizza place, she caught sight of the church (where she and Chiclette were baptized--and me, too!--and my son in the chapel, which is also where we were married. . . so many Sacraments, so many memories!). "There it is!" she said, pointing. "God!" Why yes, yes it is! :)

Marriage Prep begins in the car. . . on the way home from school?

Two days ago, my son, who is 11 years and in 5th grade, came home telling me about an "adventure" that he was involved in--nothing school related, he added. It seems that a girl in his class "likes" a boy in his class and wants to "date" him, but he has been taking no notice. ("Good for him!" I thought. In my day, we "liked" one another, but I'm not sure we really talked about "dating"--at any rate, no one went anywhere. . .) Well, my son became involved in this when the girl entreated him to ask the boy some questions--not sure what questions, probably "will you go out with her or what?" and to try to convince him to go out with her. She offered him first $10 and then $5 to ask her intended some questions.

Well, first I told him that she was not going to give him money, so not to expect it. He was a bit disappointed. I further said that if she did produce the money, he was not to take it. Then, I got went off for a little while--good humoredly--about the silliness of the whole matter: 5th graders? dating? Dating (I said, in my parental wisdom) was really about getting to know someone whom you might want to marry. Yes, he said, and when you mention marriage, the kids are like--eeeeeeewwwwww. But when it's dating, they're like--who's with who? Oh boy. Now, I would not have had a conversation like this with my mom. Never. Though like my son, I knew her opinions on the matter and probably would have cast it in a way that made it look like I understood and agreed with her on all points. Hmmmmm. . . But I never would have even gone into a "She likes him, but he doesn't like her" etc. etc. I'm glad he feels like he can be open with me, even about this trivial stuff. Because, I started thinking, this is trivial now, but my attitudes are going to lay the foundation for when things are much less trivial. Aren't they?

Having thought this on some kind of subconscious level, I realized that I couldn't just leave it at "This is silly. 5th graders are too young. This is for people who are considering getting married." So in spite of the fact that he was likely more interested in the second Leven Thumps book, I proceeded with a discussion of sorts. It went something like this:

Have you discussed the Sacraments in R.E. yet? I mean, this year? Kind of. So you basically talked about what each one is? And no much else. O.K. Have you talked at all about how Marriage is like Ordination? [O.K., he's confused, but interested. Good.] Well, both are considered vocations, and God calls some people to Marriage, some people to the religious life, and some people are neither, but live a single life. Also, Marriage and Ordination are two Sacraments that are exclusive. You can't be married if you are ordained, and in most cases, you can't be ordained if you are married. Remember, though, a couple of years ago we were at a Mass officiated by a newly ordained priest? He had been married, but his wife died, so he became a priest. So he is one of few people who will be able to receive all seven Sacraments, which is uncommon. From there, I stressed the seriousness of marriage (which is why I was comparing Marriage to Ordination--because marriage is "everyday," while it's easier to recognize the special significance of Ordination)--the idea that it is a vocation, and as such, it has to do with what God has planned for us. And because it is serious, and a Sacrament, anything leading up to it should be taken seriously--like dating. And that is why 5th graders shouldn't be talking about such things--or 6th graders, or 7th, 8th. . . You get the idea. I definitely suggested that dating was for late in high school at the earliest.

I know there's a school of thought that says that chaste, Catholic young people shouldn't "date" at all, the argument being that "dating" as it's currently defined doesn't lend itself to chastity. True, but the definition can be altered in the mind of the young person by parental influence, I think. I started thinking about this again after reading Dr. Janet Smith's essay on "The Challenge of Marriage Preparation" this evening, which claims that, on the contrary, "Young people simply don't date." She continues:

Young men do not plan for the weekend and then invite a young lady out. Often young people just hang out together and perhaps someday one or the other musters up the courage to ask his or her friend "Is anything romantic going on here?" For the licentious, a positive answer means finding a vacant bed.

I think this is partially right (the latter part) and partially inaccurate, but the point is a valid one--what passes for dating runs counter to chastity. While I'm sure that we'll have to repeat this conversation at uncertain intervals, I think it was important to lay some groundwork with this conversation.

Dr. Smith outlines three stages of marriage preparation according to the Church--remote, proximate, and immediate:

Remote preparation takes place in the home, as the child from a very young age observes how his or her parents interact. Children, like sponges, soak up nearly everything around them. In our culture, that preparation is often counterproductive; children spend their earlier years with squabbling parents and their teen years shuttling between parents who are trying to get their lives together. Even those who grow up in intact households harbor deep doubts about the durability of marriage.

Proximate preparation takes place as one moves into adulthood and begins to think about choosing a life partner. This might include some sort of education in abstinence or sexuality in the schools. I think this period is also mismanaged in our culture. Young people are not counseled to date wisely. They easily fall in love with someone who is not a good choice for a life partner and thus many unfortunate marriages are made.

PreCana instruction and engagement encounter weekends constitute immediate preparation. If done well, these are opportunities to begin to work on some of the issues that all married couples face and even to give a very important final consideration to the wisdom of one's choice. This is an opportunity to teach Catholics who know so little about their faith. A crash course is needed in what a sacrament is, in marriage as a vocation, in marriage as indissoluble. Couples need to learn why premarital sex is wrong, why contraception is wrong, why prayer should be a part of everyone's life, for instance.

Recently, my husband and I were asked to participate in our parish's Pre Cana program. Okay, it's more like ongoing recruitment than a request! ;) While we see the importance, and I believe we would both like to help prepare young couples for the realities of marriage and the realities of Catholic marriage, we have so many questions. One big one is what kind of contribution we could make. Given the chance, what insights based on our own experience could we really pass on to new couples? And how would they fit with the goals of the Pre Cana, or how could we make them fit? So far, we have missed the preliminary conversation because Doodle was sick last weekend. She's still not doing very well, though there are no real symptoms, but one reason I am dubious about whether we could or should participate in the marriage prep program right now is that it means being away from the children for a long stretch on the Pre Cana weekends. But the question of topics is also troubling. Would we discuss NFP, when we would likely stress the difficulties rather than the benefits? We are singularly unqualified to discuss finances, although we might give a lesson about not letting difficult finances hurt the marriage.

But at any rate, if we are not sure yet whether--or how--we fit in to the "immediate preparation," we are committed to the "remote." I know I mentioned to my son in that same conversation that people who are married should be--and should remain--friends. He found this difficult to apply to his parents--because, well, we're parents--but agreed once I explained. He also saw friendship as the basis for the marriage of a couple with whom we are close as a family. I hope he will carry some of this with him, and when the next round of conversations comes around, we will have a strong foundation on which to build.

Status Update with Random Thoughts

Things have been going well lately, but though I've wanted to sit down & blog (or at least answer comments from previous posts!) I can't seem to manage a whole post. I've got some partial ones saved, but that doesn't count. In fact, a bulleted list of random thoughts about things that have happened lately is more my speed right now, so here goes. . .

• A thought to add to Sarah's 40 reasons to have kids: Holidays are more fun when you have young children whose innocent delight reminds you of how to enjoy the trappings of the holiday!
• I have finally had success with a baby carrier! A pouch sling that I made from the directions on this web site. So now I want to make more for myself!!
• Things have been going much more smoothly with the toddler. She seems better able to understand what we want, and we are more able to communicate to her. Perhaps a breakthrough? (She's so sweet, I hate to sound as if she's trouble, and I hate to see her cry in anger, hurt, or frustration.) :(
• Newborn screenings are a pain. My baby has tested positive at the 2 week screening for a rare enzyme deficiency that only occurs in 1/60,000 infants. Yeah. She tested positive--along with 3 other 2-week-olds tested on the same afternoon at the same pediatric department at the same health insurance run clinic. Can we say lab error? Can we also say 4 sets of stressed parents??? Waiting for results from the retest. :(
  
• I did have some thoughts on discipline, but I have lost them now that things are better on that front. My brain can only hold one or two things at a time these days.
  
• My toddler is peeling off the little stickers on the back of breast pads and spreading the pads across the floor, but I'm nursing and can't stop her. And you know what? I don't care even a little! ;)
  
• Someone once told me that if you pray for patience (for example), God may not give you patience so much as the opportunity to exercise and so develop patience. I've thought about that a lot lately, like yesterday, when my toddler was trying to pour herself a cup of water out of the 1/4 full gallon jug. I went over to help her just as she inverted the jug, pouring water on the table, herself, and the floor. It was one of those slow-motion moments when you just can't seem to do anything. Soon, the gallon was empty, and she said, "Uh oh! Rain!" I laughed, sighed, and cleaned it up.
• Yesterday I managed to put both babies to sleep all by myself! Today, I managed to bathe & get dressed while they were both sleeping. Now, if I could only manage those two tasks on the same day. . .
• Another thing that having babies does is this: Children help their parents analyze and develop how they practice their faith (that is, when they aren't disrupting said practice of the Faith by driving the parents to distraction in Mass!!!) ;) In the coming weeks, we will begin planning for the baby's baptism. A thought that occurred to me is that, while I feel competent enough to teach my children the ins and outs of the practice of Catholicism, where I feel I am lacking is the ability to teach the love and awe--of the Church, of the Church as the Bride of Christ and of the Church as representative of the Body of Christ-- basically, awe and love of God through awe and love of the Faith that unites us. Is this something parents can teach? Likely. I frequently take lessons from Melanie and Bella (such as this one, and this one, and this one). I don't believe it has to be taught, but how wonderful if we could give something like that to our children! And if it begins growing in early childhood, hopefully the child will always have that as an anchor. But I don't know how to teach it. It is at these times that I realize that I am still new at this, and wonder where to go from here. . .
• I love Advent!! I love the decorations, the readings, the music--especially "O Come O Come Emmanuel," which I had never heard before I became Catholic. It is the time of the liturgical year when I most feel the awe and love--of God and the Church--that I mention above.
  

Hope to post more in coming days, if I can. I think the prospect of a unified post intimidates me lately, so I may stick with the bullet format.

Modest expectations & Morbid thoughts. . .

. . .For me, the two go together. Over the past several months, I have worried about a number of things with this pregnancy--implications for my career, the opinions of those around me, fear and anxiety surrounding labor. . . But as the due date approaches, my hopes and fears have shifted, and what I want more than anything is a healthy baby, a healthy mommy, and a swift return to my other children. (Let's forget, for a moment, how badly I want to stop teaching at this point, particularly since I have 14 or so papers waiting to be graded. . .)

This is the first pregnancy in which I have spent the last few weeks actually preparing for the hospital stay. With my first, I did not have a household of my own. Therefore, I did not really have anything to prepare. I had a vague idea of what I would bring to the hospital, but I didn't even have a bag packed. I'm not sure why I didn't pack it when I realized my water was leaking and I would have to be admitted the next morning, but that was a long time ago. There are just some things that don't stay with you over 10 or so years. With my daughter, it just didn't occur to me to pack a back prior to the 37th week of pregnancy. The first one came on the expected day, so certainly the second should, also!! Furthermore, when I was pregnant with my daughter, there were fewer things to prepare. I had someone lined up to watch my son, who was old enough to understand, and that was that. That is, until the hurricane. By which I mean, The Hurricane. Katrina. Then things became more complicated in some ways, but at the same time, I had relatives to cook & clean & keep my son from worrying! So my preparations were of the buying, washing, and assembling baby items variety. (And lucky I didn't wait until the last minute!! I think my rocking chair was delivered the same week as the baby!)

So for the first time, I have a bag packed. I also have had the ongoing process of preparing my class for my extended absence, which was not an issue, since I wasn't teaching last time. Like last time, I am due around the first of the month, but unlike last time, I am actually preparing for the next paychecks and bills, trying my best to stay on top of things, knowing that I am generally the one to pay bills, and that I won't want to pay bills when there is a baby to tend to! And I filled out an order form for orchestra pictures for my son that isn't due until November 7. And in the back of my head is the thought, "In case I'm not here to do it," which, given the reality of the hospital stay and the unpredictability of babies' arrivals, is perfectly accurate. But the thought could, in other circumstances, have more cryptic implications. And so I look at my beautiful little girl, and I think, "What if. . .?"

I am prone to such imaginings anyway. But these have recently been reawakened by my knowledge that my son is afraid of something happening. He is almost as neurotic as his mother, whether by nature or nurture. When I was last pregnant, he asked directly if the mother could die, since he knew from a friend's mother's experience when he was in kindergarten that the baby could. That was a very sad situation. I of course had to admit to him that, yes, the mother could die. A friend of my mother's died in childbirth from medical neglect and complications due to pre-ecclampsia. Her baby was severely brain damaged. One of her children was near my age and went to my school. But I also told him (and reminded myself) of the huge number of births that occur with no harm to mother or child. He has been mostly quiet about the risks this time, until recently. I thought it was perhaps due to RE (religious education)/CCD, especially with the ongoing 40 Days for Life campaign (not knowing how much the children are told about the campaign), but he tells me that the children were discussing pregnancy in orchestra (??!)--perhaps because of a movie and a pregnant substitute. Anyway, he came home with an odd question one Friday: whether there was a kind of medicine that could keep married people from having babies if they wanted. Of course, I also thought of the extensive ad campaigns for birth control pills, though they tend to make suggestions rather than explicit statements about the purpose of the medication, stressing "other benefits" of the pill. . . So I explained to my son that, yes, there were such medications, but that the Church teaches us that in marriage, the family should welcome children, and so they should not be used. He was satisfied. I tried to elicit the reason for this query--he is not the type of child think that it is desirable not to have children. In fact, he's waiting for a little brother! I got a vague impression from his response that it was his concern for me that led to the question. The previous week he lit a candle for me after Mass, and I tried to sooth his concerns then. I am, after all, very healthy. My mother and grandmother delivered 6 and 7 healthy babies, respectively. But my own anxieties were awakened. And I have to banish the fleeting thought, "What if?" As it is, I am aware that my little girl will not understand where I have gone for 2 or 3 days, and why I can't come back with them from the hospital when they come to visit.

I am glad that we never watched Star Wars Episode 3. After all, that is the point, no? Skywalker/Darth fears to lose his wife in childbirth--and then does, I believe. Not the message for a child who is sensitive to such things.

So while I am reasonably convinced that I will come out of this O.K., I worry for the sake of my little ones, and all of my prayers are for my safety, for them, and the baby's safety and health, for all of us.

The Best of Both Worlds

After my recent posts and the responses that others have posted, I found, on my wanderings, two posts that seem to address what I will call wanting "the best of both worlds." Because I believe that that's what I'm striving to achieve. I do naturally assume that most mothers want to spend time--some time, all of their time, more time, whatever--with their children. I feel that this can be accomplished more than it is being now by a pervasive change in attitude. And, well, it doesn't seem that I'm alone here.

In her post on Women, Work and the Church, Sarahndipity refers to a blog post by Radical Catholic Mom that raises the issue of women, work and families within Catholic marriages.

The argument is a familiar one (at least to me)--that in a Catholic marriage, we are called to be "open to life," and while this does not necessarily mean that every Catholic family must be a large family, large families are regarded as evidence of the couple's own generosity, and are certainly a blessing and an asset to the Church (and to society more generally!). Here I am using the post as a jumping off point for what I already know about this subject, which is one I have certainly considered. So depending on the couple's situation and their discernment of family size, taking into account any surprises God has in store for them along the way, the couple has to decide at some point which spouse will be primary caregiver for the children, or whether the children will be in daycare, etc. Or the couple may not have to decide, since they may already know that one or another parent prefers to stay home full time. Or they may not decide, since the default stay-at-home parent, if stay-at-home-parenting is deemed necessary, appropriate, or preferable is generally (though not always) the mother. On the other hand, potential career paths or the spouses' earning potential might dictate which parent (if either) stays home.

The point made by Radical Catholic Mom seems to be that if Church teaching is strictly followed, women will continue having babies every couple of years and stay at home, even if they desire to work, thus becoming entirely financially dependent on their husbands. There is some room for disagreement with this representation of Church teaching--at least I hope so, for my sake!!--as Church teaching does allow for the couple's discernment of family size based on any number of serious considerations (this is very briefly mentioned in the post; perhaps she treats it in more detail elsewhere). The nature of "reasons" and what constitutes "serious" are often disputed, and I think the phrasing is left intentionally vague, likely to give Catholic bloggers something to debate on a regular basis. She goes out on a limb by stating that "the Church allows men to have it all," a point Sarahndipity and others dispute.

Sarahndipity extends the argument ways that I find interesting given my own recent posts and the fact that unlike Radical Catholic Mom, she addresses means of correcting the problem and resists the temptation to lay all blame at the feet of the Catholic Church:

. . . .

However, for me at least, working part-time or from home actually sounds much more appealing then a traditional full-time job. Even if I wasn’t a mom, this would still be more appealing! And it’s almost always women who go this route. So from that point of view, women actually have it somewhat “better.” The problem is that fulfilling part-time work is hard to come by, and home business are hard to start. If it were easier, I would say women would have the better deal. But as with all things in life, it’s a trade-off.
. . . .

I think much of the problem lies with the society, which does not value children and forces women to conform to career paths that are easier for men. I think what we need is more family-friendly career options, like part-time work, flex time, work-from-home options, home businesses, etc. (And it’s not just women who deserve family-friendly work – men should not have to work 80-hour weeks and never see their families just to put food on the table. The workplace needs to be more humane for everyone.)
. . . .

Sounds familiar! So when I say that I want to work in a job that I feel allows for time with my family, and that I don't want to leave my children in the care of others, and that this should be O.K., I am echoing the sentiments of others. The interesting thing with my situation is that I don't really have the choice to stay at home full-time, even if I wanted to (which, right now, I don't really want to do, because as much as I complain, I do find what I do fulfilling!) since right now, in spite of my husband's excellent and diverse qualifications and multiple degrees, my career path is more clear-cut. I am our hope right now for a larger income and a move out of this town/state (whichever). I've gotta tell you, if this is what men who are the sole or primary providers face, it's a lot of responsibility and quite a burden! At one point we thought the job market thing would be more mutual, and that whoever got the job with the potential for a spousal hire (and moving expenses! don't forget moving expenses!) would determine & direct our move, but that's not the way things actually worked out in our case. But what she suggests is what I would like--the flexibility to parent my children for the better part of the day/week without having to give up the career path I have chosen (even if that were a real option). Incidently, I feel like, in this case, that "career path" thing is a "serious reason" to postpone pregnancy in our case (even by Church standards), since 1) circumstances have, indeed, permitted me to get this far, 2) mine is the career that has the greatest potential for advancement at this point, and 3) do student loans count? Anyway, I certainly believe that the "best of both worlds" should--and could--be an option.

Anastasia, who has also spilled a lot of virtual ink on this topic, and who opened this can of worms (at least for me), has some thoughts on Women who want too much, which to me, sounds like women who also want "the best of both worlds"--this time, for purely secular reasons (or not necessarily, but not explicitly for religious reasons either).
Incidently, my conversion to Catholicism has nothing at all to do with my preference for not putting my children in daycare--those ideas were well-formed long before I seriously considered converting!

Anastasia addresses "the accusation that mothers just want the whole world to revolve around them and all of society to cater to their every whim" and "the accusation . . . that mothers, by demanding better treatment, can go too far and wander into the mistreatment of others." She "read(s) it as a power play. The one demanding a voice must either pull herself up short or be pulled up short by others in the name of balance." She concludes with two nice paragraphs that need to be quoted in full:

. . . .
A society that would allow me freedom and equality, as a woman with children, is a better society for everyone. A society that respects and supports mothers should be a society that respects and supports human beings as individuals embedded in a web of familial relationships. The goal of feminism, as I see it, is to humanize the culture, not to marginalize the masculine. The focus is on the marginalized (i.e. women and children) but the goal is a reimagined society in which the human being is valued as such and the rights and needs of individuals as human beings are respected.

My point being, I think the idea that mothers just want the world to cater to them is a rhetorical ploy, intended to put women who make strong arguments for change in their place. It has the same function in discussions of race relations. It keeps the mistreated at the margins, subject to the will of the mainstream.
. . . .

I like the idea of a movement to "humanize the culture," with a goal of "a reimagined society in which the human being is valued as such and the rights and needs of individuals as human beings are respected." I'm not entirely sure that I see that as a goal of feminism per se (it wasn't a goal of humanism, either, and that tag is already claimed), but those feminists who see that as their goal have my blessing. (Which does not mean that I would consider calling myself a feminist--even of their ranks! For me, that would leave me open to the assumption that I believed in things and supported things in which I do not believe, and which I do not support.) If pressed, I probably could think of a movement that promotes that goal, even if it hasn't always worked out that way (there's no accounting for humanity, after all).

Departing from the world of blogs for a moment, one of the web sites to which I was directed by AcadeMama also seems to support the rights of mothers to pursue--and perhaps achieve--the best of both worlds. This is the web site for M.O.T.H.E.R.S.: Mothers Ought to Have Equal Rights. It is rare when a search of a site that is considered feminist doesn't turn up any references to abortion (like this one: The Motherhood Project); I am sorry to say that Mothers Ought to Have Equal Rights doesn't have a search feature, but there was nothing overt. One of the sites they link to is a project of NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, so do with that what you will. Not knowing enough about it, I don't endorse this site in any way, but I did find it interesting that they are, essentially, working for the recognition of the worth of mothers (and other primary caregivers) in economic terms. I would love to dispute the claim that "(m)ost mothers are 'dependents' in marriage, not economic equals. They have no unequivocal right to half the family assets, and are not considered joint recipients of the family's income during or after marriage." Familial experience has shown me that this is easily true, though I would say that any marriage that actually operates according to this principle is an abusive marriage on some level.

We of course hope that when men are the primary--or sole--economic providers, that their priorities lie with their families. Unfortunately, the "my money"/"her money" dynamic does exist, though it shouldn't exist, even when both spouses work. This dynamic existed in my mother's marriage with her second husband, who gave her $50 a week for groceries for 6 kids (her "spending money"), while he also had $50 "spending money" for bowling, fast food, and beer, with exclusive use of the checkbook when he felt like punishing her. So when Mothers Ought to Have Equal Rights quotes the statistic that "(m)others' lack of financial equality in marriage deprives children; fathers are statistically less likely to spend their money on childrens' health and education" (sic), it certainly rings true. I know divorce is a separate situation, but let's just say that the children's health care that he was ordered to pay was arranged in such a way that my mother could not access the benefits. We hope that the marriage won't actually end this way or operate this way, but in reality, it happens to too many women--even those in Sacramental marriages.

So far, I have dwelt on the worst of all possible worlds. But I feel that the arguments of a woman who raised 6 children, enduring varying levels of mostly verbal, economic, and emotional abuse, who was finally able to break free of the immediate control, but feels entitled to economic compensation for the work she did as a mother and for the emotional abuse that literally prevented her from working outside of the home and then made her feel like a failure when she had to quit her job(s) to care for her children, who suffered from manipulation, anger & neglect while she was gone, would be regarded as "wanting too much" (using Anastasia's phrase out of context). Though she has worked enough hours in her lifetime to retire (once her 13-year-old is independent), she is nevertheless expected to get a minimum wage or entry-level job or have one imputed to her by the courts.

Sarahndipity notes, separately, that "[w]e also need to realize that for women, the male pattern of graduate, get a job, work for 30 years straight, and retire doesn’t work as well. It would make more sense for women to have their children while they’re young and reenter the workforce later (or enter for the first time.) Unfortunately, there is a lot of ageism that prevents older women from getting entry-level jobs." Yeah, there sure is.

So Mothers Ought to Have Equal Rights says that women who have raised children deserve to be economically independent, or at least, to have economic independence equal to those who have earned Social Security benefits. I'm not sure how this would be accomplished, or if there is any way to accomplish this in an equitable, just manner, but it is certainly an interesting idea. The problem is that trying to accomplish this through legislative means does absolutely nothing to help the women who are suffering from this very thing right now. And really, that's a problem. The site asks, in a rhetorical response to an anticipated question, "Why is it we always seem to find the money we need for so many things, but when women ask for themselves or their children, the money is never there?" Why, indeed? Why is there money to accomplish political lobbying, etc., but not to establish a temporary or permanent independent solution? After all, Social Security isn't much of a solution either--it's more of a problem. So why should mothers want to go on board for that one? And on the other hand, it is better than the alternative: nothing. But it is not giving mothers what they truly deserve: the best of both possible worlds--the experience, responsibility, rewards of having mothered and the social and financial independence of having worked a demanding, sometimes heartbreaking, real and socially valuable job.

I'm calling it a Catholic Motherhood Meme

Well, I feel the need to post this now rather than tomorrow, as I had intended, because for some reason, the original post was removed! We had just finished a lively exchange over at Sphere of Influence that I linked to the other day. . .

The following questions were posted by Angela Messenger on the same day I posted my So What Do Good Catholic Women Do? post. She asks "What Makes a Woman a Good Catholic Mom?

1. Is it a woman who has 10 children? Or 8? Or 6? Or 2?
2. Is it a married woman who stays at home? Should she work? In a "career" or a "job."?
3. Does a good Catholic mom pursue her dreams of further education for herself while her children are still at home? Or should she put her own ambitions aside to raise her kids?
4. Does a good Catholic mom take her kids to weekday Mass as well as Sunday Mass? Does a good Catholic mom let the kids have one weekend "off" from Mass a month?
5. Does a good Catholic mom use any kind of birth control?
6. Does a good Catholic mom home-school or send the kids to parochial school or can/should they go to public school?
7. Does a good Catholic mom defer to her husband as the head of the house? Is she obedient to him?
8. If a Catholic mom is divorced and has received a decree of nullity should she be able to date?
9. Should Catholic moms volunteer in lay ministry, teaching catechism, leading adult bible study or a prayer group or should she be looking after her kids?

Just some points to ponder. I don't expect an answer to each question like this is a quiz. Just trying to put my finger on the pulse of Catholic motherhood.

The thing is, these can be answered according to opinion, or according to the catechism. But since I'm on kind of a roll today, here are my answers:

1. Family size is a very personal thing, even for a Catholic woman. It depends on what the married couple feels is advisable given their own set of circumstances. While the Church teaches that married couples should be "open to life," it does not prescribe what that means. It is possible that the needs of one child, or the ability of the parents to care for the child or children, might dictate the need to refrain from having a large number of children. The guidelines, as I understand it, are to determine family size according to generosity, but also to be sensible in what the family can support emotionally and financially.

2. Well, I think we all know pretty well what I have to say about motherhood excluding a career.

3. There is no reason that any mother--Catholic or not--should refrain from pursuing her own educational goals. A well-educated mother can only benefit her family and her children. In addition, it is counterproductive for any Catholic to suggest that a mother must refrain from educating herself for the benefit of her children, as this contributes to the "motherhood as self-defeating" and "motherhood as self-negating" principle (á la Kate Chopin) that feminists latch onto in order to justify such things as elective abortions. If motherhood prevents women from achieving self-realization through education and developing her intellect, then why should it be valued as a role for women? In order to combat that thinking, we need to combat what leads to that thinking. Had I stopped my education when I became pregnant with my son, I still would not have completed my B.A. Had I not continued my education, I would very likely not be Catholic now. So what kind of Catholic mother would I be?

4. If the family is able to attend daily Mass, that is wonderful. Some parishes' Mass schedules are a bit prohibitive, and I've already discussed squirmy toddler issues! But please--letting the kids have the weekend off from Mass? Yes, let's teach them to disrespect the seriousness of the Mass and the Church's requirement that every Baptized Catholic attend every Sunday, so that we can wonder why they stop going to Mass in high school or college!

5. See Humanae Vitae.

6. Educational choices depend so much on the schools available in the area where the family lives. I think that parochial schools should be considered, but if unacceptable for educational or religious reasons, there is no reason that a good public school can not be acceptable, as long as the correct religious education is also provided. (See a future posting for my ideas about homeschooling.)

7. A good Catholic family is composed of a husband and wife who have mutual respect for one another. I can't imagine any situation in which a wife should "obey" her husband against her better judgment, and if the two respect each others' intelligence and judgment, there should be no question of "deferment"; rather, both parents should be able to guide the family through mutual understanding.

8. I think that if an annulment is granted, whether or not to date is a personal decision. The children should not be permitted to manipulate the mother through guilt, but neither should the children be subjected to undue stress. Basically, the same cautions would apply to this case in terms of the children's well-being as are typically advised in a divorce situation. Otherwise, she should conduct herself as morally and discreetly as any Catholic single dating.

9. All Catholics, as I understand it, are called to volunteer their time to the Church insofar as they are able. Some family situations allow for this more than others, and I don't think that anyone would say that it should cause the mother or family undue inconvenience to volunteer. I have seen the argument that children can be involved in the volunteering and should be taught about volunteering, but that does depend on the number and ages of the children. If a mother has to enroll her children in daycare in order to volunteer, is that in the right spirit of Catholic volunteering or Catholic motherhood? Similarly, if she leaves as soon as her husband comes home in order to volunteer with her parish, is this in the best interest of her family as a whole? Again, this varies greatly depending on the dynamic within a family.

So essentially, my conclusions from my last post remain more or less unchanged, with some more specific provisions. We are called to discern, as Catholic women and Catholic mothers, how we can best care for our families and respond to God's will in our lives. As long as we do so faithfully, we are being "good Catholic mothers."

To Clarify. . . -or- The Angry Momma Post

My last post was intended primarily to raise a couple of issues: that when a married Catholic female decides to "live her marriage," as it's called, according to Church teaching, there is the possibility of unplanned pregnancies, whether because of miscalculation, lack of self-control, liquor, whatever. In the event of an unplanned pregnancy, particularly one that is "too soon" if you will, the intellectual class will wonder, particularly if she is in their midst, why she allowed this to happen to her. While it is true that certain professions are less supportive of frequent procreation than others, this was not the primary motivating factor behind my post. The reason my question of whether married Catholic women belong in the workplace was rhetorical, and the reason I clarified that I thought that married Catholic women do indeed belong in the workplace, is that I anticipated being told that when God blesses one with children, it is one's duty to stay home. I didn't really want to get into that. My real question was, how does one deal with the inevitable sneers in the event of an "oops" (or blessing)? Does one ignore and rest secure in the knowledge that one is doing God's will, and if so, how does this enter casual conversation? Does one try to raise consciousness and assert that children are not incompatible with careers? What I am hearing instead might run something like this. . .

HEADLINE: "GOD PLAYS DIRTY TRICK ON CATHOLIC WOMEN"

After allowing her to pursue her interests and develop intellectually for the better part of two decades, in the hope that she can make a livable wage using her God-given talents, God decides that the archetypal Catholic woman is not meant to pursue that path anyway, and instead blesses her with a large family. Unfortunately, her husband, in order to support her efforts, has been working in a job that is insufficient to support the large family economically rather than searching all over the country to find a livable wage for the large family that they didn't know they were going to have. Obviously, this is her fault for not being aware of her calling before she entered graduate school.

As one friend was told (jokingly, I assume) by her husband, she's just going to have to take this one up with God.

Gotta tell you, friends, if I really thought that this was the essence of Church teaching on the role of women in the family, I would probably have been a deathbed convert. As it stands, I do not believe that unplanned pregnancies are a signal to change vocation.

But what if they were? There is a definitive test for the vocation of motherhood. When you look at the little stick and see two lines instead of one, it means that God wants you to undertake the vocation of motherhood. It's a pretty easy sign to read, especially when you consider that there are digital ones nowadays that say "pregnant" or "not pregnant" instead of leaving it up to the women to interpret a "+" or "-" or the single- or double-lines. So that's good, no mystery there.

But what about you single women? I don't think a litmus test has been invented yet that you put on your tongue and it says "career path," "religious life," "marriage and kids in your future." God's calling may show itself a lot more subtly in your lives than in ours, I think. And when the time comes, you may not want to choose "either-or," but both. I, for one, believe that God made us capable of serving him in multiple ways, even within one person's lifetime.

Sunday Mass and the Catholic Toddler

BabyCatholic (my daughter, who is 15 1/2 months) writes. . .

Every week there a couple of days when Daddy and Brother are both home all day. At the end of this time, towards evening, they take me to a place where they splash in water, but they won't let me play in it. And there are no duckies. They sing, but only let me sing at certain times. They especially won't let me yell and talk when they're on their knees. A man is talking up front, but he won't notice me when I try to get his attention. There are books in front of us that I can't play with. And if I try to take one of the thin pages out of the books, boy do they get upset! Tonight, all I was trying to do was get off the padded step-thing on the floor and get out onto the aisle to explore a little and say 'hi' to all the people who were looking at me, but would they let me? No. So of course I had to scream! What's a baby to do? Clearly Brother didn't train these parents well enough!

My mother used to say that when faced with the decision of whether or not to have me baptized as an infant, she decided against it because she would have had to promise to bring me to church every Sunday, and she just didn't feel like she could do that with a baby. In a similar gesture, my grandmother stopped attending Mass when she had three young children at home. And, to add another generation to this saga, I (we, actually) have had our share of challenges, though we do not give up so easily!

BabyCatholic is at the age when she is still very, very cute when smiling (most of the time) and quiet, or chattering happily. But she is at the stage when people feel compelled to shoot those "can't you shut that kid up?" looks when she lets out a pterodactyl scream (one of her nicknames is Banshee) or otherwise asserts her independence. (Incidently, we are not really born with Free Will. We acquire it between the ages of 10 and 20 months.)

The "shut that kid up" look comes most often from parishoners who do not particularly mind when the 20-somethings discuss their after-Mass plans during Communion, or when the well-to-do family of 8 comes in after the Gloria and takes the front pew, no matter who happens to be occupying it. Many of these generous, non-judgmental souls have grown or semi-grown children of their own. However, for some reason, the priests also seem to take mild- to moderate offense if the Eucharistic prayer is interrupted by a shriek or if there is an audible rip from the direction of the baby with the hymnal. I'm sorry, Father, but didn't you notice that she was quiet during the Consecration? There has to be a special place in heaven for parents who wrestle with babies in Mass.

I do wonder whether there is more that could be done to make parents of young children--particularly young children of the squirmy ages--feel more welcome at Mass. My options all involve either vexing clergy and laity alike, or separating my family. One parish we have been attending lately will likely be our new parish home because they offer a 5:30 P.M. Mass (the only time locally that does not conflict with a baby meal time) and a nursery. The first time I used the nursery was three weeks ago today. I pretty much stormed out with SquirmyCatholic (you know who I mean!) during the first reading, deposited her with two friendly women, and returned for the Gospel. The entire time I was looking back to make sure they were not bringing her to me crying. Much as I enjoyed the opportunity to focus on the Mass, I felt that there was something missing. Perhaps because there was. It feels somehow wrong to split up the family during Mass. I remember when she first noticed the statues of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Conception. She pointed to Jesus and said, "hi! . . . hi! . . . hi!" This evening, she tried to investigate the contents of our mouths after Communion. There's something special in these moments, if only because her innocence redirects our attention to certain elements of the Sacred.

The Orthodox Roman Catholic has beautiful, evocative words to say about Sacred Silence. I have experienced the silent, reverent beauty of the Tridentine Mass--before I had my second child! For me to do my part to provide for the Sacred Silence in the Masses I attend, someone must be exiled--my baby, or perhaps myself. I could, perhaps sit in the windowed second-story room constructed as an afterthought in the renovations of the student parish we had, until recently, attended regularly. The view is. . . Wait, what view? The room can not accommodate more than 2 adults with a child each. In the parish that generously provides a nursery, the "crying baby room" is actually the Narthex. From The Catholic Encyclopedia:

"In early Christian architecture a portion of the church at the west end, separated from the nave by a low wall or screen and reserved for the catechumens, energumens, and penitents who were not admitted amongst the congregation."

From Wikipedia:

"The narthex of a church is the entrance or lobby area, located at end of the nave, at the far end from the church's main altar. Traditionally the narthex was a part of the church building, but was not considered part of the church proper. It was either an indoor area separated from the nave by a screen or rail, or an external structure such as a porch."

This provides a good indication of the location, I think. Basically, it's the foyer--the first level, where one partakes of Holy Water in preparation for entry into the church proper (or the Church proper, as the Baptismal font is also located in this area in this particular church!) Noisy children and their unfortunate parents are treated as "catechumens, energumens, and penitents who were not admitted amongst the congregation"--not quite worthy of admittance. We either sit together in the isolation booth, or we split our family, which, unified and fruitful, born of a Sacramental Marriage, is supposed to provide an example to others within the Church.

This evening, the pastor was rehashing a Pro-Life homily that he has given almost verbatim at least two other times in our memory. Unhappily, I was left with the message, "We're Pro-Life, but we don't want them crying in church." In all fairness, I don't believe this is what he would have wished.