Married (with a lot) of Children

Crisis Magazine ^ | February 2003 | Tom Hoopes

[sinkspur]

Until around 1970, virtually all the Catholic grade schools in the United States were free.

Wrong. Every Catholic grade school I know of has always charged tuition.

When I was in Catholic grade school in the early '60s, the tuition was small ($20 per month), but there was a tuition nonetheless.

No one went to Catholic schools because they thought they'd get into a better college.

Another ridiculous statement. Over 75% of the graduating class of Nolan Catholic High School in Ft. Worth, Tx., in 1969, went to college, and over 40% of those went to private or "name" colleges.

The vast vast majority of children exiting the Catholic K-12 system have no real faith. <

This is your lame opinion. I suggest you talk to graduates of Catholic high schools today.

That said, birth control is a serious sin no matter what excuses you offer.

The Church approves of birth control; it does not approve of artificial methods of birth control.

Catholic grade schools have never been free, at least in North Texas.

I don't know where you're getting your information.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

When I went to Catholic school in the 70's, there was a discount given with each successive child and after a certain number, the rest attended for free.

[nina0113]

We don't have any yet - the plan is for me to work a couple more years so that we can afford a house big enough for 8 kids - the 1300 sf that I bought when I expected to remain single just isn't going to do it. Steve gave me architecture software last birthday (and didn't see me for a week) and I'm working on a 6-bedroom plan. We think children need sibling bonding more than they need privacy.

[american colleen]

I dunno. ALL of the Catholic parents I know ask about the secular educational value of the Catholic schools... not ONE parent has ever inquired about the religious content of the school(s) in our area. Next week I will call the Catholic HS my daughter has been accepted to and make an appointment to talk to them about how Catholic the school really is - I already know it is superior in most secular ways to the local public HS. Plus they offer Latin - although that is lost on EVERY parent I know. I'll bet the headmaster will be surprised as I don't think many parents care about the religious education - just like most parents don't care about CCD classes at the parishes. So, all in all, most parents today send their kids to Catholic schools for the perceived edge in secular education, not for the school's religious content. Just the same reasons they send them to Boston College or Notre Dame - the names open doors in the secular world.

As far as tuition... Catholic schools were a lot cheaper when nuns taught the classes. Each nun I had was excellent but sadly, most nuns today are out with secular jobs, directing parishes (as pastoral associates or CCD directors) or leading retreats somewhere. Not good. But the bottom line is that the tuition covers the salary of the teachers (garnered from the laity and not the religious) and you have to pay them a living wage. I'm also thinking that insurance rates must be astronomical today for schools - not like the rates were years ago.

Looks like we'll be forgoing the large screen TV and a few trips in order to cough up the $7000 freshman year tuition. And that is very cheap compared to most private schools in my area. Not to mention driving back and forth each day to and from school. The bus is an additional $80 per month.

[sitetest]

Dear narses,

"The actual demographic research suggests that single income, intact, original families earn MORE than their double income peers."

Any data I have seen shows that median two-income families have higher family income than median single-income families, controlling for other variables.

I remember something that shows that a man who works and whose wife stays at home earns more than a man whose wife works. However, I don't remember that the additional income offsets the loss of the wife's income.

So, single-income households are at a disadvantage to two-income households.

I haven't suggested that folks seek economic advantage over spiritual advantage. What I am saying is that the astounding costs of Catholic school, at least in the Archdiocese of Washington, make it difficult for families to both have large numbers of children and send their children to Catholic school.

Few families can afford $25,000 + in annual tuition bills. Just can't do it. In my parish, the average man earns perhaps $40,000 per year, and if his wife works, she might earn another $25,000. These are families with decent household incomes. They live in decent, if not grand homes. They drive vehicles that run, not always much more. They do not have Mercedes or Cadillacs. Ten year old minivans, yes, Cadillacs, no. But they cannot afford to send five and more children to Catholic school. A household income of $65,000 cannot afford the strain of $25,000 in tuition. But for families with five and more children, that isn't too unusual. Something's gotta give.

Read my tag line. The first sentence is not meant ironically. I'm not suggesting that folks not have large families. I AM suggesting that the rest of the Church, the rest of the people in the Church, from the bishops on down, are failing those who do have large families by not doing what is possible to reduce the costs of Catholic education.

"More, urge your Parish and the KofC to expand the scholarship program. Examine the budgets and find where the expenses are. Get creative. God will provide. He always does."

You've assumed that we have not done this.


sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear sinkspur,

My own family's experience with Catholic schools began in 1956, when my older brother began school. We always paid tuition.

But it was very modest. To send the four of us to Catholic school did require my parents to make a real sacrifice. To send the five children in my wife's family to Catholic school was a real sacrifice for them, as well.

But it was a sacrifice that could realistically be made. We never did have a new car. We went on vacations every two or three years, and then only because my mother would find every bargain that was to be found.

But by sacrificing some here and there, my parents were able to send us all to Catholic school, and still provide a decent home in which to live, decent food to put on the table, decent transportation, good clothes, etc.

But I graduated high school in 1978, and the last year of tuition was all of $800. My sister finished elementary school in 1976, and the tuition was a few hundred dollars per year.

Now my high school is over eight times as expensive, and our elementary school is over ten times as expensive. These rates far far exceed any rates of inflation.

What happened? Well, some of it was the decline in priests and nuns as part of the faculty.

But the dirty little secret is that when I started first grade, our parish subsidized 80% of the parish school budget. By the time my sister had finished high school, less than twenty years later, in our archdiocese, it was FORBIDDEN for a parish to provide more than 25% of the budget of the parish school.

The Church in Washington, on orders of the bishops, obeyed by the pastors and the laity, cut the legs out from under Catholic education. The Church in Washington, bishops, pastors, and laity, dramatically reduced the support given to our schools.

And guess what happened? Tuitions skyrocketed, and folks were priced out.

There is a real problem, here. If a family wishes to send their children to Catholic school, they must either: 1) Have a much, much higher than average income; or 2) limit the number of children they will send to Catholic school.

Hence, my tag line.


sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear nickcarraway,

"If it was only a matter of being able to 'afford' kids, then you'd expect richer people to have larger families. Most the large families I know aren't wealthy, but they find a way. And most the wealthy families I know don't have many kids."

In my parish, and among homeschooling Catholics that I know, there are many, many families of means that have many children. That is why they are able to both have large numbers of children, and send them all to Catholic school.

I mean it quite literally that some of these families are spending TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND to THIRTY THOUSAND dollars in Catholic school tuition. The typical family with household income of perhaps $65,000 (typical in my parish, at least), doesn't have seven kids, and have them all in Catholic school. They couldn't afford TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND to THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS even if they wanted to.

The only families that I know who can afford to have large numbers of children AND send them all to Catholic schools have household incomes well in excess of $100,000, some as much as $200,000 per year.

I don't know what Catholic school costs are where you live. Where I live, they are high, and unreachable for middle class folks with more than two or three, or perhaps four children.

Not hard to reach. Unreachable.


sitetest

[sinkspur]

The Church in Washington, bishops, pastors, and laity, dramatically reduced the support given to our schools.

I've never understood why Catholics just expect parishes to subsidize Catholic schools. Not every Catholic kid who wants to go to Catholic school gets to go, yet his family puts money in the collection plate, subsidizing other kids.

[sitetest]

Dear sinkspur,

In my parish in the 1960s, pretty much anyone who wanted to go to the parish school could go, as long as their family contributed a weekly envelope. Most folks had to pay the going rate of tuition (heavily subsidized). Folks who couldn't afford the already heavily-subsidized tuition were given a break even from that.

Large families paid for the first few kids, and the rest went free. Our pastors made sure that any Catholic family that wished to have their children go to Catholic school, and were willing to make a moderate sacrifice to achieve that, was able to do so.

The elementary school which I attended had 90 - 100 kids per grade, K-12. I had 44 classmates in first grade, and there was another class of first graders, as well.

The reason why any Catholic kid could go to the Catholic school was because the rest of the parish picked up the bulk of the cost.

Today, most of the Catholic kids in our area don't go to Catholic school. I'm sure there are many reasons for that. For one thing, fewer than half of these families go to church.

But folks are priced out, as well.


sitetest

[St.Chuck]

I believe the reference is....

Ok...thanks. I was out in left field trying to figure that one out.

[Desdemona]

Most the large families I know aren't wealthy, but they find a way. And most the wealthy families I know don't have many kids.

Part of it is being pound-wise versus penny-wise. There's a lot of money-saving options people don't always use. That and the people I know with less than three usually have VERY expensive life-styles. Not all, but many of them. Do you REALLY need a Lexus? Four bedrooms in a 4,000 square foot house for two kids and a toy poodle? The condo in Aspen? The country club membership (unless you can write it off as a business expense)? Come on.

The school tuition is a problem. My HS alma mater is $5000 for the first child this year. That's part of a larger system, but $5K is not cheap. Even when we were in HS and college, and four of us were in private schools at the same time, Mom worked to pay for tuition. At the time, tuition rates were much cheaper.

IMO, this is a manifestation of the religious vocation drop-off. Call me crazy. You have to pay lay teachers a living wage. Nuns and priests weren't nearly as expensive.

[Aloysius]

The problem is that all Catholic parents have a DUTY (not an option) to send their children to Catholic schools.

I believe parents have the DUTY to provide their children with a Catholic education. This education does not have to be provided by a Catholic school - the parents can do it.

[Salvation]

**They are a blessing, to all involved. These parents are faithful parishioners: the kind that tithe, care, and provide many of the Church's vocations. The culture at large gets a lot, too: a future workforce to support the aging population, stable citizens, and the preservation of the family.**

Definitely a "big-family-discrimination" at work in the United States.

So sad. I am one of seven. And I turned out OK! LOL!

[Salvation]

One Bread, One Body

One Bread, One Body

<< Thursday, February 20, 2003 >>

Genesis 9:1-13

Psalm 102

Mark 8:27-33

View Readings

GOD’S FIRST WORDS TO US

“God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them: ‘Be fertile and multiply and fill the earth.’ ” —Genesis 9:1

One of the first things God said to Noah after the flood was the first thing He said to the human race after creating us: “Be fertile and multiply” (Gn 1:28). God concluded His blessing of Noah with the words: “Be fertile, then, and multiply” (Gn 9:7; see also Gn 1:22).

The Lord has made it very clear that children are a blessing from Him (see Ps 127:3) and should be welcomed (see Mt 18:5). In the new covenant, however, the Lord wants us to multiply not only people but also people who are His disciples (see Mt 28:19). He insists that we bear abundantly the fruit of evangelization, or we will be “like a withered, rejected branch, picked up to be thrown in the fire and burnt” (Jn 15:6).

Naturally, the Lord wants human beings to be created within the marriage covenant through sexual relations and brought to birth through the mother’s suffering in pregnancy and delivery. Supernaturally, the Lord makes us new creations (see Gal 6:15) and gives us new birth (see Jn 3:3, 5) by our covenant relationship with Jesus (see Jn 15:5) and our suffering for love of Him.

Don’t be abortifacient or contraceptive. Choose love and life-giving pain. Choose life and be fruitful.

Prayer: Father make me faithful, fruitful, and pleasing to You.

Promise: “The nations shall revere Your name, O Lord, and all the kings of the earth Your glory.” —Ps 102:16

Praise: Although enduring more than one miscarriage, Sandra continues to choose to follow God’s call to love and openness to life.

[Grig]

Having a large (more than 2 kids by today's standards) family doensn't go down well with the PC crowd. To them kids are status symbols and more than two of them is more work than it's worth.

A couple years ago we pulled out kids out of the public school system and put them in a Catholic school for many, many reasons. Recently out 6th was born and we arranged for the delivery at a Catholic hospital. There was not one distainfull look or word from any teacher nurse or doctor, tons of shared excietment and joy and it was such a nice change from the not-so-subtle hints about birth control and 'you are a nutcase' attitude in the public system.

God bless the Catholics for their pro-family stance.

[Possenti]

Thanks.

Two of my bosses (they are cousins) have 15 kids each. Other Catholic relatives at work also have large families...

They're full of the most beautiful girls and handsome boys I've ever seen. I have the pleasure of working with some of the older kids, and they're the most well-behaved young adults I've known. They're ALL homeschooled, or have been. About 80% of the company's employees are family, excluding me. Some of the non-family employees make wisecracks about the large families, but usually they're the ones whose kids are criminals and/or live very immoral lives. When I hear these remarks, I usually ask, "So, how are YOUR kids doing?"

My wife and I only have one daughter - 9. She is unable to have anymore kids, but the three of us feel somewhat "adopted" into the larger family of the Church.

[Palladin]

I enjoyed reading all the posts about large families. Indeed, there are many sacrifices involved, but the payoff comes later on, especially in old age, as you watch your many children carry on the traditions you love so well.

That being said....this Bascom family is not entirely fault-free. Any parent with half a brain knows that a two-year-old child (and during the whole toddler stage) must be watched constantly. The only time you can take your eyes off them is when they are asleep. The two year old is going through a phase of tentative independence and continuous exploration. The brighter the child, the more dangerous this phase is.

Parents should be especially watchful if there is water nearby--creek, stream, ocean, swimming pool. You cannot take your eyes off a toddler for even a second around water.

The Bascoms sound like a flaky and irresposible bunch to me.

[rmvh]

And they get no support whatsoever from their parish.

I hate to rain on your parade but parish support for this has been evaporating for years...and for good reason.

It has to do with basic economics since most parishes simply do not have (and would not have) the money to educate these very much wanted children.

[Maximilian]

ALL of the Catholic parents I know ask about the secular educational value of the Catholic schools... not ONE parent has ever inquired about the religious content of the school(s) in our area.

Excellent point. I have had the same experience. Supposedly "Catholic" schools have become prep school feeders for the supposedly "Catholic" colleges (and the non-Catholic colleges as well). The secular advantages of a superior education vastly outweigh the faith content in the minds of parents. Once you have a critical mass of such parents, then the pressure on the administrators is to move further and further in that direction.

[Maximilian]

I believe parents have the DUTY to provide their children with a Catholic education. This education does not have to be provided by a Catholic school - the parents can do it.

Oh yes, I agree. The assumption has always been that the Catholic education would be provided by the Catholic school. This assumption was stated very clearly by Pope Pius XI, and it was common knowledge among Catholic parents up to Vatican II.

But the situation is different today, as you say. Parents can no longer rely on Catholic schools to give their children an education in the faith. In fact, they can pretty much count on the Catholic schools to DESTROY whatever faith the children bring with them.

So after many years of feeling that it was our duty to send our children to Catholic schools, we have finally concluded that our general duty to provide a Catholic education for our children takes precedence over the specific issue of the Catholic school. It has taken us this long to figure out that the 2 things are mutually incompatible.