February 10 was our anniversary of coming into the church. I can't believe it's been a whole year already. In a way, it seems so recently, yet in a way I feel more and more as though I have been home for a long time. The more I learn to live the Catholic faith the more I realize that my entire life was leading me to this point.
Lately I have been contemplating how the teachings of the Church inform child rearing. I was raised a certain way, with certain standards that we were expected to attain and certain discipline techniques to help us get there. Then there was the theoretical motivation for the techniques my parents were attempting to live up to. This in turn was developed in part by certain doctrines and beliefs about God, man, sin and salvation. I don't necessarily agree with all of the doctrines anymore, and it is difficult to separate the child raising techniques from their antecedents in philosophy and Protestant theology.
For example, as a former Calvinist, "total depravity" factors largely into the way children are perceived and has a huge influence on what is expected of children, even in infancy. I know not a few Calvinists who started spanking their children at a few weeks old, seeing persistant crying as wilfullness and therefore sin. Many would recoil in horror and call this child abuse, even many fellow Calvinists, but there is no denying that the underlying belief in man's utter sin and misery from the moment of conception, unable to do any good and inclined only to evil, is a major contributor to this kind of end result.
The pastor of the Presbyterian church we used to attend actually sent me (and as far as I know still sends out to new mothers) a series of letters each time a new child was born. One of these letters was on the topic of schedule vs. demand feeding. The pastor advised mothers to immediately put their babies on a schedule, and warned against demand feeding, because the child must learn from its earliest days that the world does not revolve around him. Giving in to the child's every request for food is merely teaching him to be selfish.
In contrast, from what I understand, it is Catholic belief that sin cannot occur until there are also present certain mental faculties as well as a level of maturity and understanding that one is doing something morally wrong (I believe, beyond simply knowing that he was told "no" but also reaching past this to the concept of morality.) This is commonly referred to as the age of reason. And, it is said that a child cannot actually be guilty of sin until this age of reason (not defined in years, as far as I know) is achieved. This must have serious implications to discipline and training, mustn't it?
Not to mention sacramentology completely changes the picture as far as baptized infants are concerned. While the Church does teach that man is conceived and born in sin, the Catholic position is that baptism washes away sin and provides regeneration. Thus, from baptism on, a child is actually
not totally depraved, but a recipient of the graces of his baptism. Therefore we must not expect to see only the effects of the natural, sinful nature, but also the effects of his regeneration.
And just for another example of far-reaching consequences of theology in this area, a Catholic friend (also convert from Presbyterian background) was just telling me that she thought a lot of the strict disciplinarian type homes where there is justice and not a lot of mercy, is due to the fact that Mary has no place. She softens the impact of discipline justly due us by interceding for us just as our own mothers were inclined to do. This opens up a whole separate line of thought, since where I come from, a mom is supposed to feel guilty for "covering up" for her children to Daddy, or giving them a second chance and not telling on them. This kind of behavior, quite natural in a mother, was either overlooked and swept under the rug, or else seen as "undermining" the authority of the father who was trying to bring order and teach his children to have character. Is this the right way to look at it, or is it actually something to be praised in a mom that she has this instinct to cover? Is it something in which we are to emulate our Blessed Mother?
So, I'm open to your opinions on this topic and related issues. Any thoughts, comments or conversation starters? Books, tapes or experts to recommend? Experiences to share?
Comments (42)
It also has consequences on the debate about abortion and has effects uopn our understanding of the person of Christ as a maturing baby and infant. Those who oppose infant baptism and support abortion both adhere to heretical Christology; for they deny that Christ was a person and that the divinity & humanity of Christ were united at conception.
Children may not be morally accountable for their action until they have reached the age of reason but their hearts and bodies are still under the sway of death and the dominion of Satan so it is best that they receive the Sacraments ASAP.
Like, what do you mean by "why stop at Mariology?"?
And just for another example of far-reaching consequences of theology in this area, a Catholic friend (also convert from Presbyterian background) was just telling me that she thought a lot of the strict disciplinarian type homes where there is justice and not a lot of mercy, is due to the fact that Mary has no place.
I asked "why stop at Mariology?" because there are just so many theological problems would could reference to explain Calvinist parenting.
First, it determines our views on abortion, euthanasia, soteriology, sacramentology and Christology. Secondly, it supplies us with theological principles that apply to child rearing; it is the basis of moral norms and parental ends, which is about as practical as it gets.
For example, the Enlightenment thinkers believed that children were born tabula rasa (with a blank slate) and without original sin. Consequently, since children were born with a clean slate and would naturally tend towards the right path, any problems they had were considered to be the result of bad parenting and the corruption of society. "Society" corrupted the children who were "naturally" good; all the children needed was the space and freedom to "develop their potential" and they would become virtuous and reasonable people/citizens; sexual desires were to be released rather than "unnaturally" "repressed." Bad theology/philosophy leads to bad parenting.
1) Children are subject to original sin and are consequently in subjection to disordered desires and have a weakened will, but they are not totally depraved or naturally evil.
2) It is the task of the Church & Christian parents to facilitate this healing process in a loving & responsible manner.
3) Virtue is acquired *only* through habit and practice, grounded in a sincere heart and through the exercise of free choice.
Honestly, I'm drawn to the techniques of "To Train Up a Child" by Michael(?) Pearl, but it probably isn't at all consistent with Catholicism.
The two main conservative Catholic authorities on family issues that I've come across are Greg Popcek and Ray Guerendi (Dr. Ray). The Popcek's are anti-spanking and seem much more "liberal" to my authoritarian ears. Dr. Ray is much more my style. I'd recommend checking out his books.
To add to all my confusion, I'm also attending a "small group" from my wife's reformed baptist community that is going through "Shepherding A Child's Heart" by Ted Tripp...which has some decent stuff, but isn't really helping clarify things in my mind.
Let me know what good resources you find!
The authoritarian/punitive parenting style endorsed by many evangelicals is incompatible with the Catholic Faith. It is based on the heresy Jansenism, which time and time again the Church has condemned.
Our Mother the Church has high expectations for our behavior, but when we fail, she is a gentle disciplinarian. The Church teaches that the will must be taught, disciplined, and channeled... but never disparaged or broken. Catholic parents should use their authority in a manner that is in conformity of the dignity of the human person, which JPII asserted in Evangelium Vitae. JPII also lists attempts to coerce the will among the torments of body and mind that must be condemned. The human will must be respected, not broken. St. Francis De Sales would agree: "All things need be done by love, not force. [discipline] little by little, slowly, gently as the angels do, by pleasing suggestions and without harshness"
In Familiaris Consortio, JPII writes "...special attention must be devoted to the children by developing a profound esteem for their personal dignity, and a great respect and generous concern for their rights. This is true for every child, but it becomes all the more urgent the smaller the child is and the more it is in need of everything..."
We should seek to build character, not by submission or blind obedience, but help the children love and respect each other, their family, God...
My fave book from a Catholic perspective is _Parenting with Grace: A Catholic Parent's Guide to Raising Almost Perfect Kids" by Gregory Popcak. The author is an orthodox (little o) Catholic with marvelous perspective on the Church and parenting.
I think these are super questions and ponderings! I have to learn all about these matters starting from scratch. You've studied the matter more than I, but I'll humbly offer some thoughts:
(1) God gave us bodies, not just souls. We're not angels, without bodies but with perfect knowledge, who were given only one opportunity to choose to serve God. As humans with bodies, we have bodily limitations and God gives us unlimited opportunities to choose Him until we die. Right now, I'm trying to learn about brain development because I don't want to demand more of my children than is possible to give. Their brains are so incredibly immature when they are born; I don't think their brains reach adult size till age 5 (?). We may be able to force obedience through punishment, but does that make a "good" child or is it simply the same as how an amoeba flees from pain? The amoeba still isn't a rational being making a moral choice for good. Right now I'm reading "What's Going on in There? : How the Brain and Mind Develop in the First Five Years of Life" by Lise Eliot. [oh darn, font change, don't know how to fix that]
The Church teaches that are bodies are not depraved things, they are God-created. The more I learn about the science, the physicality of infants and how they work, the more I am in awe of God's design. For example, breastfeeding on demand improves my motherhood because I have to keep my baby near me to do it. With the baby near me so much of the time, I learn him very well and we have many opportunities for loving interaction. The very frequent prolactin surges give me patience and feelings of love, which are invaluable when I'm so stressed out! Cosleeping and, therefore, BFing throughout the night continues those prolactin surges. It provides opportunity for much more touch between me and Baby, which has many beneficial effects and even dramatically increases survival of premature babies. It also keeps my fertility at bay and, while I want lots of babies (I already miss being pregnant!), keeping them somewhat spaced until the current baby doesn't need me so much helps me retain my sanity and be a better mama. God is good to us women.
(2) The Church is surprisingly merciful, despite its incredibly high standards. I think it is simplistic, but true, to say that our culpability is limited by our true understanding. Because of that viewpoint, I suspect my discipline will be more consequence-oriented than punishment-oriented, although there is certainly a place for punishment. I want to ask why is my child doing XYZ? Did your #1 kid tear up the bread because she actually thought she was helping you cook? Or because she wants to imitate you making bread crumbs because she admires you? Or because being naughty gets parental attention, which she wants? Maybe the consequence now is that the kids get no bread this week (I assume they like toast and PB&Js and such), with a reminder at every meal of why they're not getting bread. Or when they dump fingerpaint in the carpet, the consequence could be that they won't receive new art supplies and that they have to spend the afternoon learning how to scrub the carpet clean instead of playing.
(3) Personally, I think I will punish moral issues MUCH more strongly than acts of naughtiness. Now, my catechist would remind me that ALL acts are moral, but you know what I mean with my casual language here. I would punish harshly unkindness, hitting a sibling, lying, or being cruel, both because those acts are serious in the matter of the states of our souls and because they all have malicious will behind them. Making a mess or breaking my belonging or not paying enough attention are not grave matters of the soul and, at the younger ages when kids are likely to do such things, also lack malicious will as their motivation.
(4) I look to our Mother Mary and also to good, earthly mothers at our parish. They are all so tender-hearted! I look to the fruit (the children) and where I see good fruit, I examine the parents. Of course, they are firm and upright, but they are also very tender. There is one mother of seven at our parish (I won't write her name here) and her children are old enough that we can know that they are turning out superbly; she is the most dear, kind, Mary-like woman I've ever met in my life; that's why we chose her as our son's godmother! I go to her for mothering mentorship.
(5) Regarding reporting misdeeds to Daddy, I don't think it's lying or hiding not to do this every time. He doesn't report to you every difficult aspect from his day at work. Daddies need to know enough about their children's misbehavior and mistakes in order to know their children's temperaments. What are their natural virtues and vices? What are their weaknesses? What one child needs to work to improve is not the same for another child. What punishment works on one child won't be the same one that works on another child. But I think part of division of labor is that Mommy handles much of the day-to-day troubles without being obliged or needing to drag Daddy into everything. I certainly don't think kids should get punished twice, first by Mommy, then by Daddy.
So, I have tons to learn and little real experience, but those are some of my thoughts, since you asked. I hope you'll share with me any Catholic resources you find as I'll need to read them as well.
~KTL
We may be able to force obedience through punishment, but does that make a "good" child or is it simply the same as how an amoeba flees from pain?
Even if it is, so what? By the time a child is five years old they will be "trained" in whatever worldview they have been given for the first five years. If we are waiting for Johnny to be reasonable and make moral choices, but have neglected to show him the very physical and painful consequences of misbehavior, have we done him a favor or a disservice? And precisely because a 2 year old does not have advanced faculties of reason, there must be another way to approach them besides having a "little talk." If from birth until age 5 we are simply letting a child be destructive and willful in all areas, because they are "just curious" and the infractions are not specifically morality-based, (assuming you haven't harmed the child in anger during this time because they run wild) how do you first start setting up boundaries? Now the child is bigger and stronger.
The Church is surprisingly merciful, despite its incredibly high standards. I think it is simplistic, but true, to say that our culpability is limited by our true understanding. Because of that viewpoint, I suspect my discipline will be more consequence-oriented than punishment-oriented, although there is certainly a place for punishment. I want to ask why is my child doing XYZ? Did your #1 kid tear up the bread because she actually thought she was helping you cook? Or because she wants to imitate you making bread crumbs because she admires you?
If child #1 KNOWS full well, from repeated instruction, and been shown to understand the rules, especially when child #2 is breaking them, that the kitchen is not a place for them to play and that nothing is to be removed without permission, and yet still goes in the kitchen and plays with food from the refrigerator, it's not just "admiration" or "curiosity" or "imitation" anymore, but also overt disobedience. How do we treat this? How do we keep from losing $30 of the $60 a week we spend on food, to the trash can, if this behavior goes unchecked? Do we invest in truck loads of child-safety locks and make an environment in which they CANNOT disobey? Where's the free will in that? Or do we TRAIN the children (yes, by physical punishment) to our will instead of conforming our entire lives to theirs?
Making a mess or breaking my belonging or not paying enough attention are not grave matters of the soul and, at the younger ages when kids are likely to do such things, also lack malicious will as their motivation.
Yes, I agree in full with your general principle. We cannot expect maturity where maturity does not exist, much less punish for lack of it. If a child spills his drink because he was being careless, that is not a disciplinary offense. However, if a child spills his drink because he was waving his fork around two minutes after his parent told him to stop waving his fork around, then it's not a mere matter of carelessness, but of disobedience.
How do you get around the problem of disobedience?? In the interplay between parents and children, there are things you don't allow, cabinets that are not to be opened, places that are not to be climbed on, electric sockets that are not to be touched, and millions of other little things. After you tell them and show them what the rule is, and you are sure they understand what you are telling them (that they understand 100% will be OBVIOUS if you are a parent for any length of time) and when they purposely look at you, look at the forbidden object, look back at you and defiantly put their hand there, what do you do? What action do you take?
See Dave and I were talking about this recently. I think I have a lot to learn about what it means to respect the dignity of the human person and all that stuff, but in general, corporal consequences for disobedience does not seem to me anti-Catholic. Even though penance is generally light, and it is left up to us how much additional penance and hardship we undergo as far as Mother Church and our state of grace is concerned, there will always be temporal consequences due to sin. Sometimes in this life we make a mistake that we will pay for the rest of our lives. Part of our job as parents is to train our children to enter the real world, and to provide a safe and loving environment while they learn these truths. So if they break a law at 16 and get arrested, that is a harsh truth that we want to prevent them from finding out the hard way. The way we do that is we imprint upon them a very strong code of living within the rules. The only way I know to do this is by meting out spankings. A spanking is administered on the cushiony rear end and compared to a jail cell 15 years later, is EXTREMELY safe and loving.
In addition, every temporal punishment that is not taken upon oneself in this life, adds to one's time in purgatory. Purgatory is a place of horrible suffering. It is the hot fire which will burn away our remaining dross. So no matter how lenient the Church may be discipline-wise, it's not like we are ultimately "getting away with it." And our child training should certainly reflect that.
As for people at church, I haven't spent time with anyone there enough to know whether I think their kids turned out well or not. I could point to a few I'm not impressed with. The woman you mention was actually a Protestant convert, I am not sure how old her kids were when the family converted, but I wonder how much of their training was the traditional Presbyterian method...
Thanks again for the thoughts... any response?
by the way i was talking about stuff like, your 10 year old son does not take out the trash and rather than let daddy find out and punish him, the mom takes it out herself...
You're right, I don't have answers to your good questions. Argh! These things stymie me. That's why I have to read books and ask questions!
Oh, and about the mom covering by taking out the trash . . . yeah, I'd leave the trash sitting there so that 10-year-old son could feel the consequences (unless that benefit was outweighed by the fact that my husband is very stressed out at work this week and I choose to spare him the hassle right now).
And about the woman at church, she converted after her last child was born and I think her eldest might have been about 12. You make a good point to question her early child-rearing methods!
~KTL
On the other hand, there is a point where it no longer matters what a child's INTENTION is, there should still be consequences for repeating the same offense over and over after loving instruction is given... rules are rules and are given for their protection and help, and they don't need to understand WHY they should obey them. That will come in time.
Anyway - I guess I will save up some money and buy some of those books that were recommended here and on the St Francis forum.
Sarah,
http://www.nospank.net/popcak.htm
Food for thought from a Catholic persepctive.... (yes this is written by Popcak again, who ends his "10 Reasons I Don't Spank" with " Well, there you have it - ten reasons I, as a Catholic, loyal to the teaching Magisterium of the Church, family counselor and father believe corporal punishment and Catholicism to not mix. I ask you to consider these reasons with an openness to the fullness of life as seen and taught by the Church, and with a real desire to seek the truth.")
And I can tell you that Popcak is not the slightest bit New Age... this man is *solid*...
It is difficult when considering things different from the ways in which we have been set... employ the same healthy skepticism (and skepticism *is* good, I absolutely agree with you) when reading The Pearls' writings as you would reading Popcak's or other gentle discipline Christian writers. Perhaps "I wonder if the Pearls are influenced by the errors of Calvinism and the evilness of the corporal body and Western parenting techniques not practiced by our Jewish foreparents in the Old Testament" ;)
I suggest this only because you will not find the same corporal-based discipline books from Catholic writers... you just won't, which is in itself enough to give pause. Where are the Catholic-based books advocating heavy switch-use? They don't exist, and for a reason.
There are a few good Protestant organizations that address these issues, many former switch-users...
http://www.parentingdecisions.com/sufferthelittlechildren10.htm
http://www.aolff.org/
http://www.gentlechristianmothers.com/
Anyway, only offering any of this since you asked.... let me know when you tire of this subject!
And what about all the Bible passages telling us to spare not the rod? Spank him with a rod, he will not die... Catholics still believe the Bible don't we?
And considering the parents I know who did not employ spanking, but used some other kind of "time out" method or something, I am NOT impressed with their kids. The kids are not attentive, run wild, the parents can never do anything without having to attend to their children every five minutes (I'm talking about preschoolers and up, not babies and toddlers), and don't seem to be able to sit still and pay attention. Maybe they are doing something wrong...
I will read the links now.
Now it has become popular to refuse to administer corporal punishment. Let me address this from several perspectives. First, that of mine own: I wholeheartedly endorse corporal punishment since, as one who received it thousands of times, I can vouch for its usefulness and effectiveness. It did not make me a violent person, nor did it make me think my parents were evil or unforgiving. I knew all along that they did it because they loved me, and if they had not done it, I shudder to think what kind of person I would be to-day.
Second, let me address it from the perspective of one who has seen and know both children who were spanked and children who were not. There is a remarkable difference in their attitudes and behaviour. One set is decidedly more respectful, more obedient, and more self-controlled. The other lot - well, it is rarely pretty. At every single ecclesial community of which we have been a part, people have always commented on how well-behaved our children are. I can definitely see my children's flaws, but I cannot ignore the fact that my two oldest can sit through a ninety-minute Latin High Mass without difficulty on most Sundays. If there is an outburst, it comes from the younger of the two, and it is usually only one (and occurs during the Consecration, of course).
Third, let me address it from my understanding of the Scriptures. The Scriptures clearly teach that if one withholds the rod of reproof, he hates his son.
Withhold not correction from a child: for if thou strike him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and deliver his soul from hell. - Proverbs XXIII:xiii
Corporal punishment drives the foolishness out of a child and will save his very soul. Is there no end to the utter novelty of the modern Catholic self-styled teachers? I don't mean to sound arrogant, but since when has the Church ever in all Her history neglected corporal and capital punishment as a means of saving one's soul from eternal peril?
"Where are the Catholic-based books advocating heavy switch-use? They don't exist, and for a reason."
Just because modern Catholic writers are not writing about it doesn't carry much weight. Where are all the Catholic bishops standing up for the ancient Catholic faith? There aren't any! Does that give me pause? Well, yes but not for the same reason. It gives me pause because we have a bunch of spineless bishops in office who care more about not bankrupting their dioceses after keeping sodomites in parishes than they do about justice. They cry, "Compassion, compassion" for the twisted priests who abuse little boys all the while forgetting the compassion they ought to have for the boys whose dignity was robbed from them. I'm sorry, but the modern state of the Catholic Church is a little too sleazy these days for me to take them seriously.
Our pastor at our parish definitely advocates corporal punishment, and has not only taught it from the pulpit but has discussed it with me during spiritual direction. He has written about it in the weekly bulletins. I value his opinion very highly; I am very reluctant to accept anything novel, and that certainly includes issues relating to child-rearing.
Can you think of a single Catholic school where the nuns and monks did not administer corporal punishment to the students? Isn't that the stereotypical portrait that we all grew up seeing (or experiencing)? Of the ten reasons that Popcak gives, not a single one of them was even true! He claims that it is unscriptural, which is an area he shouldn't have addressed if he wanted his argument to hold any water. He claims it is "against good science" which is only true if you hearken to the Jewish psychiatrists whose child-rearing solutions frequently include heavy medication with psychotropic substances. The truth is that "science" has determined no such thing and doctors are split 50-50 on its effectiveness. (Source).
He claims that spanking is "violence" which is the same nonsense rhetoric that the American bishops use to decry the state-sanctioned executions of sex offenders. One wonders where this sense of "compassion" comes from that is compassionate to the offender and cruel to the victims.
He makes a false distinction between "punishment" and "discipline" as if they are mutually exclusive. One administers punishment to aid in a person's discipline. Actually, whether you make a child perform some act of penance or hard labour, both can still be considered to be punishment. It is interesting to note as well that our Lord advocated the punishment of children who curse their parents - and the punishment He advocated was the death penalty. Popcak pits "justice" against "love" as though the two cannot be part of the same source. God is love; God is just. Parents can be the same, and ought to mimic both aspects of God's nature insofar as they are able.
One other aspect to this whole discussion is the notion that spanking is mere "behaviour modification" whilst we should be striving for the conversion of the heart. Again, this is a false dichotomy. We should strive after the heart of course, but a necessary component of that is change in behaviour. Does not our sanctification necessarily involve a change in behaviour? Does God want us to avoid sin or not? Part of my being Catholic is a change in behaviour because I do not want to lose my soul in eternal torment. Is it wrong if I change my behaviour to reach that goal? Now, my motivation should be one of love for God and not merely the fear of the pains of Hell, but my motive is secondary to the salvation of my soul. Those who are more santified refuse to sin purely because of a love for God, whilst those not as holy may do so because they fear Hell. One is a loftier ideal than the other, but both accomplish the same goal.
In conclusion, if I have to pick between what was a universally accepted practise in the Church and a post-Vatican II principle largely endorsed by Jewish liberal psychiatrists, I am going to stick with the ancient teachings of the Church. There may be much to learn in this area, I do not doubt it. Already I have adjusted my understanding of discipline to match the Church's greater emphasis on the mercies of God, but I cannot so quickly disregard so much based on the novel ideas of a few.
I am not familiar with the Pearls, not that I didn't get your point, which was already sort of in my mind (the reason I am asking these questions), but FYI the parenting methods we are coming from are by the likes of Douglas Wilson and Ted Tripp. Without knowing what that author team propogates, if you are not familiar with these authors I mention, you may not know that they are very strongly into training and instruction as the primary means of discipline. Their goal of child rearing is to have LESS punishment and more reasoned exchanges and natural consequences, as the children get older and take upon more of their own decision making. The idea is to have independent, thinking pre-teens and teenagers who do not get spanked but whose hearts have been captured by their parents and by the Lord, so that they seek out advice and make wise decisions. Spanking is heavy early on and light to nonexistent later.
Curious, as a side note on your side note, what basis do we have for assuming that the Israelites did not employ spanking? They had capital punishment for gross parental disrespect, I would assume something came between baby wearing and stoning?
1. I never actually expected, and am a bit taken aback, that Catholics would be anti-spanking. That is not one of the things I imagined would come out of this discussion.
2. I really am considering these issues with an open mind, and any questions/arguments I put forth are things I cannot get past in my own mind; things I need an answer to in order to satisfy my own conscience. It is not for the sake of being difficult or argumentative. So please continue to argue if you have a different perspective. I will keep pushing back until a retreat is inevitable or until I have become convinced in my own mind of what is right.
that being explained:
If the Catholic Church is against spanking a priori, then why would it list the verse everyone uses to defend spanking in the new Catechism, directly in the question regarding parents' responsibility to their children? Are we joe six pack in the pews supposed to just figure out that it does not mean what it seems to mean, as Popcak would have us believe? That seems contrary to the heart of the Church's ministry which is to make clear teachings for our benefit. If the text actually meant the opposite of what it says, why would the Catechism list it as though it were clear? Maybe because it is clear, and striking a child with the rod is the Church's accepted method?
2223 Parents have the first responsibility for the education of their children. They bear witness to this responsibility first by creating a home where tenderness, forgiveness, respect, fidelity, and disinterested service are the rule. The home is well suited for education in the virtues. This requires an apprenticeship in self-denial, sound judgment, and self-mastery - the preconditions of all true freedom. Parents should teach their children to subordinate the "material and instinctual dimensions to interior and spiritual ones."31 Parents have a grave responsibility to give good example to their children. By knowing how to acknowledge their own failings to their children, parents will be better able to guide and correct them:
He who loves his son will not spare the rod. . . . He who disciplines his son will profit by him.32
Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.33
I would take Proverbs 23:13-14 no more literally than I would take Proverbs 23:2. Or else we would all be slitting our throats... that is a big difference between reading scriptures through a Catholic lens and through a Protestant lens. It boils down to, there are massive numbers of Christian and Catholic parents raising healthy well-behaved children without corporal methods... you can choose to be one of them, or choose not to. I taught highschool before kids and my class was full of kids who were scared about their daddy whipping them if he found out about X,Y,Z... it didn't stop the behavior, just caused them to be sneakier about it and try to hide it more. I would say more parents spank than not. And how would you categorize our society's teenagers as a whole?
St. John Bosco, who lived in the 1800's, was an educator who used a non-corporal punishment system in his schools. He believed the best discipline was *preventative*- don't expect too much too early, and help the children avoid the near occasion of sin by placing them in an environment where they have less chance for sin. " My sons, in my long experience very often I had to be convinced of this great truth. It is easier to become angry than to restrain oneself, and to threaten a boy than to persuade him. Yes, indeed, it is more fitting to be persistent in punishing our own impatience and pride than to correct the boys. We must be firm but kind, and be patient with them.
I give you as a model the charity of Paul which he showed to his new converts. They often reduced him to tears and entreaties when he found them lacking docility and even opposing his loving efforts.
See that no one finds you motivated by impetuosity or wilfulness. It is difficult to keep calm when administering punishment, but this must be done if we are to keep ourselves from showing off our authority or spilling out our anger.
Let us regard those boys over whom we have some authority as our own sons. Let us place ourselves in their service. Let us be ashamed to assume an attitude of superiority. Let us not rule over them except for the purpose of serving them better. This was the method that Jesus used with the apostles. He put up with their ignorance and roughness and even their infidelity. He treated sinners with a kindness and affection that caused some to be shocked, others to be scandalised, and still others to hope for God’s mercy. And so he bade us to be gentle and humble of heart.
They are our sons, and so in correcting their mistakes we must lay aside all anger and restrain it so firmly that it is extinguished entirely. There must be no hostility in our minds, no contempt in our eyes, no insult on our lips. We must use mercy for the present and have hope for the future, as is fitting for true fathers who are eager for real correction and improvement.
In serious matters it is better to beg God humbly than to send forth a flood of words that will only offend the listeners and have no effect on those who are guilty." -Saint John Bosco
Sarah you asked if not spanking, what then? My gut says let children be children. Don't expect perfection before they are emotionally capable of it. Provide them with guidance and correction. As they mature they will naturally tend towards good if provided with good formation. And hey- you saw that that our no-spanked 3 1/2 yr old also can behave during Mass. ;) Now the 1 1/2 yr old.... hrm....
(Ooo I make it a habit not to debate spanking! I only got into this originally because I thought Sarah was taking a stand back and looking at the current discipline situation. :) So it sounds like you have it worked out for you.... ;) so....)