Is your home a sheltering space or just a sleeping bag?
Recently I ran across this profound and insightful statement by Joseph Ratzinger, written in 1977:
[In] the very structure of modern society the corporate life of the family is increasingly displaced by the logic of production and the specializations which it has developed. As a result, the family home frequently seems no more than a sleeping-bag. In the daytime it effectively dematerializes. No more can it be that sheltering space which brings human beings together in birth and living, in sickness and dying. (Eschatology, pp. 69-70, emphasis added)
Two hundred years ago in this country, the vast majority of families had all their members stay close to home throughout the day. The mother stayed at home to tend the house and raise the kids, and the father either worked the farm or at a local shop nearby. Family life revolved around the house, making it a “sheltering space,” as the future Pope Benedict noted. Today, however, nothing could be further from reality. As Ratzinger writes, during the daytime, our homes “dematerialize.”
It is amazing how my own neighborhood becomes a virtual ghost town during the day, even during the summer. Although plenty of families have young children, you never see any during working hours, as they are all away at day care or summer camp (at night, it is little better, as yards are still empty and most homes seem to have a TV-blue glow emanating from their homes). The days of children playing with their siblings and the neighborhood children are long gone, as are many of the deep bonds that unite a family together and to their community.
It would be easy to point the finger at individuals and blame them for this epidemic. But, as Ratzinger points out, such a situation is due to the very structure of modern society. Everything about our modern economy and society pushes families to become two-income households, and drives families to live farther and farther away from work-centers, thus adding to the total time away from the home. And the process is self-perpetuating: as more families become dual-income, their total income rises, thus rising the cost of homes, which in turn pushes more families to become dual-income and to live farther from work-centers. The devil has done a wonderful job in modern times in preventing homes from becoming “sheltering spaces” as long commute times and mothers having to work outside the home are destroying any sense of the family home being anything more than a “sleeping-bag.”
All of these factors make me more and more appreciative of stay-at-home mothers. I understand that there are situations in which a mother must work outside the home, but I still cannot but praise those families who make the great sacrifices necessary to have the mother stay at home with their children. I am very grateful to my parents for many things, but one of things I’m most thankful for is that my own mother stayed at home throughout my childhood years. By doing so, she made my home a “sheltering space.” Without exception, there is no job I admire more than mothers who stay at home with their children. This feeling of admiration even is greater than the one I have for priests, of whom I have great admiration. In my estimation, stay-at-home moms have an even more noble – and thankless – task. As grace builds on nature, so too does the work of the priest build on the work of the mother, the first educator in the school of love for any child. A loving mother does more to help a priest in his work to sanctify souls than any other person.
The greatest human person who ever lived – the Blessed Virgin Mary – was a stay-at-home mom, and her task was a humble one, although it was also the most important one given to a human person in the history of mankind: to raise the God-man, Jesus Christ. In the fifth glorious mystery, we contemplate the coronation of Mary as Queen of Heaven and Earth: here is a simple stay-at-home mom made the Queen of men and angels! I often think that there will be countless other unknown stay-at-home mothers who will one day be glorified in heaven because of their work to make their homes sheltering spaces and not just sleeping-bags.
Our Lady, Mother of God, pray for us!
Mitch Albom, a columnist for the Detroit Free Press, has written a few times about growing up on in a neighborhood where everyone knew everyone else and everyone knew where the kids were playing, etc. Based on my own observation, those days are gone for most of us.
There are other significant changes in families. However, that does not mean that the home is no longer a home, or there is not love or loyalty.
I recently went on a tour of Europe. The tour guide pointed out that, even with much publicity about a less religious population, families remain strong there.
No appreciation for the stay at home fathers? My husband has stayed home with our 4 kids since right before the 3rd child was born. That’s the only way that we can make our family work on a single income (which is important to both of us).
Thank you for the poignant reflection. What I found most edifying was that your (and Ratzinger’s) lamentations are not just fruitless nostalgia but a recognition that “such a situation is due to the very structure of modern society.”
We have to know what the problem is in order to really engage it.
Benedicamus Domino,
Charles
Hello, this is my first post on your blog. Hopefully it will add something to the conversation. The phrase you made bold in the quote is certainly “bumper-sticker worthy”, but as Mr. Charles made clear, the first sentence is more important in this context: “…the very structure of modern society the corporate life of the family is increasingly displaced by the logic of production and the specializations which it has developed.” It means that we have to get at the meaning of “the corporate life of the family”, and also figure out what “the logic of production” and the “specializations”. When I say “we” I guess I have to start with “me” because I certainly don’t completely understand the now-Holy Father’s implications. I know that you indicate the paradox of dual-incomes/rising housing prices, but who is going to tell the women in college that that their degrees would better serve them in the context of being a stay-at-home mom? Certainly we don’t hear it from our pulpits. Nor does it seem like all forms of Catholic Education these days impress upon women at least a hint of the beauty of motherhood over career-hood. (Being in the world of career-hood myself, I can tell you that some days I’d rather stay at home raising 5 kids than be at work.) Perhaps the ongoing economic decline will help us as Catholics to realign our local communities in body, mind, and spirit towards simplicity, proximity/localism, and contentment.
Matthew Wade is right. By in large the institutional church is utterly silent about the value of at-home moms.
The simple fact of the matter is that with very few exceptions, a mother can do more for the world through the time-intensive work of raising her children, than by going out and working in the world. But instead of hearing this simple message, we hear about the “new feminism of John Paul II” and groups like ENDOW (Educating on the Nature and Dignity of [working] Women) seduce our wifes and mothers into thinking they make a greater contribution to the world by working in an office and hiring out the care of their children to less qualified surrogates, instead of emulating the Blessed Mother and doing the work themselves.
Enough about stay-at-home moms, already. How many Catholics stay close to their spiritual home? In the city I grew up in, neighborhood were compact and full of families. There was another Catholic church just ten blocks or less away from the nearest church. Homes were close to their REAL home–the holy sanctuary where God lives. Out here in the West, there are huge distances between homes of Catholics and their churches. Our parish is considered a “commuter church” to which folks come in from as far away as 50 miles or more. But houses, decent ones big enough for families, right next door to the church or a few blocks away are not purchased by parishioners. They don’t want to live in a so-called working class neighborhood. They prefer their toney and gated subdivisions nearer to malls rather than the church. This invasion by the modern-day marketplace and its values has not only affected women’s roles but has also destroyed parish life and turned our churches into “sleeping bags”. God help us!
Magistra,
You make a great point about being physically close to our “spiritual homes”, i.e. our parishes. As Catholics, we should appreciate the intersection of the physical and the spiritual in our lives. Parishioners being close to their parish is certainly the ideal situation.
However, I’ll never think we can have “enough” praising of stay-at-home moms; they are a vital treasure of our Church who are too often unappreciated.
Yes, women’s roles and parish life, and the lives of each family member… everyone is affected by the shift away from the home. There are solutions, but my problem is that in staying home, educating my son myself, and letting him decide to choose a game rather than forcing team membership, he spends a lot of time alone at home with me. Sometimes he asks if he can go to day care (no need) just to see some kids. How sad is that?
Who said stay at home moms perform a “thankless” task? Hopefully their husbands and children appreciate them at least.
David, Having been both a stay-at-home mom & a working mom for many years, let me answer your question “who said stay at hom moms perform a thankless task?” Me. I say it: We perform a thankless task. I am married to an ex-Marine journeyman ironworker who loves me & loves our kids. No doubt about it. But, if I’d been waiting for thanks & appreciation from him, we wouldn’t have done very well as a family. We both just went ahead & did what was necessary…what we do isn’t based on thanks.
You know, Eric, I see the point of this post but I have to agree with the commentor who cited the fact that most folks in their parish consider it below their station in life to make their parish church the center of their family. The whole Catholic zeitgeist is going to have to change in this country before we can really point any fingers at the culture of death/obama etc. We’ve met the enemy & they is us.
I’d say that a thankless task is one that goes largely unacknowledged by society as having much value. If my job as a full-time mom doesn’t qualify, I’d like to know what does.
That is not the same as saying I want the thanks – my reward is right in front my face in my well-adjusted, happy and carefree children.
Nevertheless, gee, Eric, thank YOU for a post that made my day!
SuzyCCC, I would say that you might want to look for ways to say yes to your son – doing all the cool stuff you can do with him because you’re home – taking the focus away from what seems (for now) to be missing. If his life is full of the good and beautiful – and he’s experiencing those things in connection with the most important person in the world (that’s you!) – he will be content. Especially if you are able to seek out others who are making similar choices. Everyone needs a few good friends (but usually a few is enough). Good luck!
Let’s make sure we all remember something vitally important to this discussion that is both relavent then (1977) and now. Ratzinger/Benedict is not an economist and never has been. As Holy Father, the gift of infallability does not cover economic structure, laws, etc. Why do I point this out? To remind people that he can be wrong. Plain and simple. To blame advances in production capabilities and the specialization and division of labor for destroying family life is utter nonsense. The shear denial of so many catholics in matters of economics and the complete lack of understanding (sometimes willful) of the free market is saddening to say the very least. It couldn’t be shown any better than in Mr. Sammons reasoning above concerning wage and price increaces. When will catholics actually study how and why the free market works and also where the Churches infallibility ends?
Chris,
Nowhere in my post do I note that Ratzinger is speaking infallably; how could I – he wasn’t even pope yet! Can I not agree with a future pope without you thinking I’m calling on the doctrine of infallibility? I liked the quote because of its content, not because of who said it.
Also, I do have some training in economics, having concentrated on it in college (and, in general, I’m a proponent of the free market although I don’t bow to it as a perfect system). Where exactly does my (admittedly brief) analysis of the situation falter? Don’t just criticize my post without explaining where I go wrong.
Mr. Sammons,
It’s abundantly clear that you weren’t invoking papal infallibility. Sadly though most Catholics aren’t very clear on the issue of when it starts and ends. Also, yes it was obvious that it was pre-papacy Ratzinger speaking. I don’t think I could have made that much clearer in my previous post. My point was and is simple, that being that the area of economics is beyond the Churches sphere of expertise and authority. My problem is that most Catholics treat what the Pope/Church says as unquestionable and borderline infallible when it come to matters of economics. When the Holy Fathers last encyclical was released and translated, I found myself arguing with one Catholic after another because most of them viewed what the Holy Father wrote as though it were some kind of infallibly defined economic dogma. With the utmost respect, I found much of the encyclical absurd and in some cases, quite frightening.
Let be very clear here Mr. Sammons when I say I meant no offense by what I wrote. I have been a fan of your blog for quite a while and have always found your posts to be far above par in quality. No empty flattery, just being honest.
Fair enough, Chris.