Reengineering the Family (What are the consequences of our severing biology from parenthood?)

National Review ^ | 02/01/2010 | Heather Macdonald

[achilles2000]

I don’t know, but would like to....

[Political Junkie Too]

So what does this mean? Will the back half of the hospital be a birthing center, and the front half be a storefront for people to choose the babies that they want?

Natural parents will have to prove that they will be better parents to the offspring they produce?

-PJ

[silverleaf]

as a protestant, the protestant baptism of my kids is recognized as a valid Christian baptism by the Catholic church they now attend

In fact I have known a Catholic nurse who has in emergency baptized dying infants where a priest was delayed- I think the imperative of Christian baptism of infants (unlike the other sacraments) is pretty accepted by the Catholic church apart from the worthiness of the parents. Not that there aren’t some priests who would refuse

I would not feel at peace with any church that imposed a litmus test on the faith or worthiness of the adults before baptising a child. Baptism is about the child’s direct relationship to God, not the parents

Peter himself baptized gentiles, to the amazement of Jesus’ jewish believers.

[silverleaf]

I also am asking “just what kind of a church is this”?

Methodist? Catholic? Lutheran perhaps. Or Presbyterian? Any church of which at least one of the parents is a member.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

"There are only two sides, Christianity and Satan."

All Buddhists are satanists.
All Hindus are satanists.
All Shintoists are satanists.
All Muslims are satanists.
All agnostics, athesists, etc. are satanists.
Lots of people who call themselves Christians are really satanists.

[MrB]

Your post, if it wasn’t intended to try to shame me,
would be

ABSOLUTELY ACCURATE.

[aruanan]

I'm not quite sure I understand your post. Are you saying that the traditional family of a Father, Mother and children has been rare throughout history?

Yes. It's usually seen only in advanced civilizations and not always there. One could say Roman culture was an advanced civilization, but a father, mother, and children living together in relative isolation wasn't the case. In the United States the practice among Southern plantation owners of enforcing monogamous single family units among slaves was a giant step up for them from Africa. Such was not the case in the West Indies and Brazil where slaves were so brutally treated that they did not, on average, live long enough to establish families, not that it was encouraged to begin with. If you want a review of "family" dynamics around the world throughout history, look at The Origins of War in Child Abuse and The Emotional Life of Nations though I'm not convinced by the author's central thesis. He does, though, point out how much the anthropologists tried to put a good spin on really horrific child-rearing practices around the world. The section on pre-WW II Germany is quite interesting.

[Mrs. Don-o]

You are quite right when you say that the Catholic Church recognizes all Christian baptisms "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (understood to mean the Holy Trinity) with water and with intent: which means intending what the Church intends.

What the Church is looking for here is not "sinlessness" but intent.

If the Church only baptized those who are "sinless" or "worthy," there would be nobody baptized. Nobody! We all realize this!

But look again at the idea of "intent." Let me use a rather obvious example: if some movie-maker wished to portray a baptism, and filmed me (an actress) baptizing a baby as you described, though there was real water and the real words and a real baby, the baby would not be considered "really baptized" because there was no intent. It was just a movie.

However, I myself could certainly baptize a baby (same "me," same baby, same water, same words), and it would be recognized as a "real baptism" if the intent to baptize were there: if I intended what the Church intends by Baptism, and if the parents as well intended it.

No dount one can produce counter examples ("Hey, I know a couple didn't intend to raise their child with Christian beliefs but got him baptized anyway...") But they were supposed to think about, and accept the responsibilities of Christian parenthood. Nowadays, parishes ordinarily have parents attend pre-baptism classes in order to clearly understand their obligation to give their baby a Christian upbringing.

And -- back to the original topic --- if two men in an openly sexually disordered situation intend to remain in it, that might well indicate that they don't intend to raise the child in a Christian manner.

On the other hand: say you had a single mother who was a lesbian, but she left the lesbian lifestyle and wanted to have her child baptized: no problem. Because of her intent to raise her child in a Christian manner.

A thousand "welcomes" and many blessings to all such people!

[brytlea]

So, you are simply taking issue with nuclear families being the norm (mom and dad with kids, instead of mom, dad, grandma, etc and kids)?
This seems not to be very germane to the issue at hand, which would be non biological parents raising kids in unusual combos, such as 2 dads, a mother and 2 dads, etc. Nuclear families are certain a much more modern construct, but then again so is living in single family homes and driving cars. Not sure why you bring it up.

[frogjerk]

baptism is for the child, no matter whose arms it rests in during the service

Baptism is for the child yes but infant baptism demands that the Parents and God Parents profess their faith. The Parents are the first teachers of the child in the faith, therefore one of the requirements for baptism into the Catholic Church is that there is the hope that the child will be raised in the Catholic faith. One of the sponsors also has to have received the sacraments of initiation (Baptism, Eucharist, and Confirmation).

[silverleaf]

Only if the baptism is to be perfmmred by a Catholic priest in a Catholic church

but any Christian baptism is a Christian baptism, per Catholic practice. Personal experience.

[aruanan]

So, you are simply taking issue with nuclear families being the norm (mom and dad with kids, instead of mom, dad, grandma, etc and kids)?

No, I'm not.

This seems not to be very germane to the issue at hand, which would be non biological parents raising kids in unusual combos, such as 2 dads, a mother and 2 dads, etc. Nuclear families are certain a much more modern construct, but then again so is living in single family homes and driving cars. Not sure why you bring it up.

Because too many people have as Disneyfied a view of human history and culture as they do of nature. They imagine Mommy and Daddy Indian with their little Indian kids, Weeping Willow and Rolling Rock, and even Mommy and Daddy Caveman with progeny in tow, the family preying together staying together. It wasn't like that. And it still isn't like that in much of the world. Though the nuclear family (even extended nuclear family with grandparents living with the family) is not the default mode of family grouping and childrearing in the human race, the family as pictured in The Donna Reed Show, Ozzie and Harriet, Father Knows Best, The Danny Thomas Show, The Dick van Dyke Show, I Love Lucy, and others represent the pinnacle of societal development expressed in the Western world. If society is too bent on dismissing it as simply another valid arrangement among many, it'll do so only to its detriment.

[brytlea]

I’m sorry, I guess I’m having a comprehension problem. I am not sure if you are defending or decrying the western view of family. Can you please rephrase? I would like to know if I agree or disagree with you! Thank you for your patience!

[aruanan]

Though the nuclear family (even extended nuclear family with grandparents living with the family) is not the default mode of family grouping and childrearing in the human race, the family as pictured in The Donna Reed Show, Ozzie and Harriet, Father Knows Best, The Danny Thomas Show, The Dick van Dyke Show, I Love Lucy, and others represents the pinnacle of societal development expressed in the Western world. If society is too bent on dismissing it as simply another valid arrangement among many, it'll do so only to its detriment.

Even though some say these shows make buffoons of the father, compared to childrearing in pre-British Australia, pre-colonial Africa, and New Guinea, and many parts of the Muslim world today, they represent what would be to any of the kids in the latter societies a heaven on earth.

[brytlea]

So, what IS the default mode? I don’t recall studying that in my one semester of sociology, but maybe we did and I slept thru that part! ;)

[aruanan]

So, what IS the default mode? I don’t recall studying that in my one semester of sociology, but maybe we did and I slept thru that part! ;)

There is no default mode. There are only arrangements that either facilitate the spiritual, mental, and physical well-being of the group or erode it. A father and mother who live together in a state of mutual respect, who care for each other, who have children who aren't merely the unavoidable consequence of their pursuit of satisfying their sexual urges, who have a clear idea of what they need to do to provide for their children's needs, who make the home a shelter against whatever chaos the children may experience out in the world, who help to make the world intelligible to the children but make sure the children learn that they are not the center of the universe do more than anything or anyone else to ensure that their children will grow up to be adults who treat others right and who will help to protect others from harm. The arrangement best suited for this is the Judeo/Christian view of marriage of a man and woman forsaking all others and becoming one flesh until death do them part.

[ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY]

“Peter himself baptized PENATENT gentiles”

Fixed it for you...

[silverleaf]

Acts 10 does not say the gentiles were penitent, only that they were visited by the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues, convincing Peter they shared a common spiritual experience with circumcised believers and were worthy of baptism

there, fixed it for you

[ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY]

Reference your post about the family being rare in history.

“It's usually seen only in advanced civilizations and not always there.”

You (or your professors) are confusing the NUCLEAR family's fairly recent appearance with all family (marriage/blood-related) forms.

The extended family (father, mother, children, Grandparents, uncles and aunts) is indeed ancient, extending at least as far back as the beginning of recorded history. All members of extended families reared their offspring; specific roles were varied by ability, wealth, etc. The records are clear and extant, to say otherwise is pure BS. You can find some exceptions among primitive African tribes, but to extrapolate their exception back onto the rest of humanity is absurd, (and academically dishonest).

Brytlea and FrogJerk: This guy is spouting pure BS as taught by many in the academic world today. His cited reference “The Origins of War in Child Abuse and The Emotional Life of Nations” should be a big hint as to the inanity of his argument! This cr@p was starting to be taught when I was in school (I didn't fall asleep in my classes, LOL!), but most of us had taken other courses (such as ancient history) that we could effectively challenge these anti-western bozo professors.

[ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY]

I knew my spelling of “penitent” didn't look right, but spellcheck didn't catch it! LOL!

Back to your assertion that they weren't penitent, but touched by the Holy Spirit. Don't you think THAT makes a person contrite???

Unbelieving, unrepentant adults are not baptized just because they want to be—it's pointless.
For infants, it is the sponsors that are judged for worthiness; if they are unbelievers, the baptism is again pointless for the child.
The child will have other opportunities to be baptized when he can choose for himself.