| We hope you enjoy your visit! You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harasment, and crude or sexually-explicit language. If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Golden Age of the Nuclear Family? ? ? | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Friday, 17. July 2009, 12:16 (347 Views) | |
| Rose of York | Friday, 17. July 2009, 12:16 Post #1 |
Administrator
|
Terry Prendergast, Chief Executive of Marriage Care, the Catholic marriage counseling service, will address a conference this weekend. A dominant theme of Mr Prendergast's address centres on how the Church has often built up a romantic image of a golden age of the nuclear family which, in truth, has not really found expression in reality, often with unwelcome consequences for those that “do not fit.” These include single parent families, and also co-habiting and same -sex families. He says that often “those individuals…want to live good lives according to the precepts of the Gospels. They are an advert for the Church, an advert that the Church often ignores, or consigns to the waste bin.” The conference is for QUEST, the community of lesbian and gay Catholics gay and lesbian couples, but I made a point of posting this on a thread specifically devoted to the nuclear family, to avoid having this muddled up with the Adoptions Of Children - SORS thread. I would like to explore the prevailing attitude of the Church (in other words, our bishops, our parish priests, our societies) towards the family. |
  Catholic and proud of it! Talk to God before Mass. Talk to each other afterwards | |
 |
 
|
| John Sweeney | Friday, 17. July 2009, 12:52 Post #2 |
|
From the summary you quote, Rose, Mr prendergast has a point. The public stance of the Church on the family, and on marriage, is often hopelessly sentimental. This has always puzzled me as priests from their pastoral work must know that the reality is ont always rosy, to say the least. This idealised championing of the conventional family can isolate those with other lifestyles ( which includes single Catholics faithfully following Church rules) and can on occasion lead to bitterness from those in conventional families who have suffered within that structure. John |
|
|
|
| Rose of York | Friday, 17. July 2009, 12:52 Post #3 |
|
Administrator
|
For all practical purposes, in developed countries the nuclear family is all but extinct. Seven ages of man or woman: 1 From birth to age 18, live at home with the parents. 2 Aged 18, either go away to college, or find one's own accommodation, in or near home town. parents don't know what you are up to. 3 Early twenties, gain degree or get promotion, get a job miles away from the family. Meet the love of one's life, that person's blood family are a couple of hundred miles away in the opposite direction to one's own parents. 4 Mid thirties, redundancy or promotion takes one to yet another area. Visits to and from two sets of parents are just a few each year, due to work and distance. 5 Early forties, start worrying about both sets of parents approaching old age. Phone frequently, but one cannot be of practical assistance on a day to day basis. 6 Late forties, worried sick about the parents, all their children have moved away, the poor souls are on their own, no family around them. Consider moving back to live near them. Mother says "Don't bother, we're not on our last legs. You would be wasting your time moving back here. Your Dad and I are moving to Spain. 7 Sixties. Parents dead. Brothers and sisters, nephews and nieces all over the place. Nothing to hold you where you are. Sell the house, move out to a nice village with low crime rate and friendly mutually supportive community. Make your plans to enjoy retirement, take up canoeing and mountain biking. Who can tell what your future will hold? So many families are geographically spread apart, is it any wonder so many people are open to new ideas, of the model of family and home life? Is the Golden Age of the Nuclear Family a thing of the past? If so, does the Church give adequate support and attention to the new models of family and community life? |
|
Catholic and proud of it! Talk to God before Mass. Talk to each other afterwards | |
|
|
|
| Rose of York | Friday, 17. July 2009, 16:31 Post #4 |
|
Administrator
|
It is worth idealising, provided we are realistic. Those who achieve united nuclear families deserve credit, but it is not the norm. Three causes: social mobility (they used to call it moving away) and families with problems, not always apparent to onlookers also other lifestyles, whether by choice or circumstance; single people who don't marry or don't meet the right person; single parents; divorced and widowed parents; groups of singles house sharing; same sex couples, some in sexual relationships, some celibate; parents whose children rarely make contact; adults whose parents are not interested in them, in some cases with justification, in some cases no justification. About half the houses in this country are occupied by one person. |
|
Catholic and proud of it! Talk to God before Mass. Talk to each other afterwards | |
|
|
|
| Mrs.Pogle | Friday, 17. July 2009, 18:04 Post #5 |
Happy Couple!
|
I believe the extended family is a better model than the nuclear family. My daughters and partners/children have both lived with us ~ one still does! My dream would be to own a large farm house with me and hubby, both daughters and son-in-laws and all the grandchildren  Although we don't know, I like to think that St. Anne and St. Joachim lived nearby, or even with the Holy Family. This model precedes the "nuclear family" model and I feel is healthier 
|
"Living Life on the Home Front!" My Blog: Life on the Home Front  “It is most laudable in a married woman to be devout, but she must never forget that she is a housewife. And sometimes she must leave God at the altar to find Him in her housekeeping.” ~ St. Frances of Rome | |
|
|
|
| Rose of York | Friday, 17. July 2009, 19:29 Post #6 |
|
Administrator
|
Having now checked the definition of nuclear family, I see I was confusing it with the extended family. Nuclear family is parents and children, living together, the usual scenario. The extended family consists of parents, their children, the grandparents and,often, other relatives - not necessarily all under one roof. The point of Terry Prendergast's address is that there are other "family" settings, not based upon the relationship of a man and a woman, often barely recognised in Church circles.
Agreeing a situation is right and proper is one issue, accepting the persons in the relationship is another. |
|
Catholic and proud of it! Talk to God before Mass. Talk to each other afterwards | |
|
|
|
| Deacon Robert | Friday, 17. July 2009, 20:29 Post #7 |
|
1 From birth to age 18, live at home with the parents. OK 2 Aged 18, either go away to college, or find one's own accommodation, in or near home town. parents don't know what you are up to. A number of years in the military. Lived at home for 2 years after separation. 3 Early twenties, gain degree or get promotion, get a job miles away from the family. Meet the love of one's life, that person's blood family are a couple of hundred miles away in the opposite direction to one's own parents. Moved in to take care of my Grandmother after grandfathers death. Worked for major telecommunications company, still lived within 2 iles of my parents and 5 miles from aunt and uncle. 4 Mid thirties, redundancy or promotion takes one to yet another area. Visits to and from two sets of parents are just a few each year, due to work and distance. Still in same town even with promotions, marriage, and university. 5 Early forties, start worrying about both sets of parents approaching old age. Phone frequently, but one cannot be of practical assistance on a day to day basis. We see surviving grandparents and parents weekly. 6 Late forties, worried sick about the parents, all their children have moved away, the poor souls are on their own, no family around them. Consider moving back to live near them. Mother says "Don't bother, we're not on our last legs. You would be wasting your time moving back here. Your Dad and I are moving to Spain. Dad and inlaws have passed, yet still in weekly contact with siblings. both daughters still live at home (26 and 31). 7 Sixties. Parents dead. Brothers and sisters, nephews and nieces all over the place. Nothing to hold you where you are. Sell the house, move out to a nice village with low crime rate and friendly mutually supportive community. Make your plans to enjoy retirement, take up canoeing and mountain biking. Who can tell what your future will hold? one sister still lives with my step mother, brother live 35 minutes from home. We are retired but will not move. future? here today gone tomorrow. Be prepared. I guess I don't fit the pattern. Many In my parish are not that different. Part of it may be that here in the US we don't have any problem traveling 300 mile to see family. Our freeways make a 300 mile trip easy. Edited by Deacon Robert, Friday, 17. July 2009, 20:32.
|
| Dcn Robert | |
|
|
|
| Mrs.Pogle | Friday, 17. July 2009, 21:46 Post #8 |
|
Happy Couple!
|
We don't fit that pattern either! My eldest daughter and her family live with us, my youngest and her family live 15 minutes walk away. My Mum lives 15 minutes walk away too. My sisters moved away but ony a 30 minute train journey, so we're all pretty close and in regular contact. I see my youngest daughter at least 3 times a week and we talk on the phone at least 3 times a day! My Dad lives miles away, but has a second family as he re-married (he's not a Catholic), who look after him! Edited by Mrs.Pogle, Friday, 17. July 2009, 21:48.
|
|
"Living Life on the Home Front!" My Blog: Life on the Home Front “It is most laudable in a married woman to be devout, but she must never forget that she is a housewife. And sometimes she must leave God at the altar to find Him in her housekeeping.” ~ St. Frances of Rome | |
|
|
|
| Rose of York | Friday, 17. July 2009, 23:08 Post #9 |
|
Administrator
|
Lets have another try. The prevailing attitude seems to be that "the family" has mother, father, children. The point of Terry Prendergast's address is that there are other "family" settings, not based upon the relationship of a man and a woman, often barely recognised in Church circles. John Sweeney hit the nail on the head:
Do we accept people with non-standard Catholic family models? Two examples are the divorced (not remarried) parishioners and those single mothers who for all we know may regret past transgressions. I wonder if they feel included when they read documents and statements about "the family"? |
|
Catholic and proud of it! Talk to God before Mass. Talk to each other afterwards | |
|
|
|
| PJD | Saturday, 18. July 2009, 05:56 Post #10 |
|
"The public stance of the Church on the family, and on marriage, is often hopelessly sentimental. This has always puzzled me as priests from their pastoral work must know that the reality is ont always rosy, to say the least." I agree with John; but there are two factors that operate in this field - in my 'hesitant' opinion. Dialogue on the one has already taken place above. The other relates to the 'rosy' - common knowledge from experience e.g. first love is not necessarily last love. It's the difference between eros and agape. PJD |
|
|
|
| OsullivanB | Saturday, 18. July 2009, 10:22 Post #11 |
|
I don't think the Gospels really give much support to the sentimental ideal of the family. Jesus was an only child brought about by his mother whose marriage was never consummated and by a step-father whom he never mentions. Not exactly normative. Peter doesn't appear to consult his wife when he just walks off the job to follow a complete stranger on a mysterious mission. He doesn't seem to be a family man. Indeed the disciples are rather short of personal experience of spousal/parenting love. I will look through the Gospels again for pointers on ordinary family life, but would be grateful for any references that might speed my search.
Edited by OsullivanB, Saturday, 18. July 2009, 13:19.
|
|
|
|
| Rose of York | Saturday, 18. July 2009, 14:00 Post #12 |
|
Administrator
|
Other than the Holy Family (which was hardly standard, Joseph being foster father), is any other family unit of parents and children mentioned in the New Testament? Mary, Martha and Lazarus were three siblings living together. The centurion and his daughter are mentioned but not the mother. In contrast the Old Testament has many references to named men and women members of extended families. The history of the Jews could not have been written without detailed narratives of their doings. |
|
Catholic and proud of it! Talk to God before Mass. Talk to each other afterwards | |
|
|
|
| Powerofone | Saturday, 18. July 2009, 17:59 Post #13 |
|
Is it wise to get fixated on definitions of family? Is it not sufficient that "where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am"? |
|
|
|
| Rose of York | Saturday, 18. July 2009, 18:42 Post #14 |
|
Administrator
|
PowerofOne, not fixated, just chaating, having tried to get a discussion going on Terry Prendergast's speech which is, in parts, very controversial. |
|
Catholic and proud of it! Talk to God before Mass. Talk to each other afterwards | |
|
|
|
| Emee | Saturday, 18. July 2009, 18:47 Post #15 |
|
OsB, couples that seemed happily married: Anna and Joachim Elizabeth and Zacharius Abraham and Sarah... I suppose we are only told about the ones we need to know about and the ones that fit into the story of salvation. Perhaps the very reason why the Apostles did not seem to be so gutted to be leaving their wives was because they were not family-minded men and may have only married out of social convention rather than for love. (Remember this generation had to be told later by St Paul that it is also good not to marry - this generation thought you grew up, you got married, and that was that; that was the "choice".) Perhaps Jesus spotted this about them - that they were the type who could cope with family separation. Conversely, perhaps Jesus did not select men as apostles who were besotted with their wives and families for the very reason that He knew the wrench for them would be nigh on impossible to bear. Jesus is compassionate. I think Jesus selected His Apostles very carefully knowing exactly what they could handle. That said, it is generally accepted by the Church that Peter made good provision for his wife and family while he was away and didn't just disappear off and neglect them. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General Catholic Discussion · Next Topic » | |
6:45 AM Nov 25