Clobber a child? Pope Frank says "Yes"

robindch

So, fresh from saying that it's ok to wallop somebody if they make a joke about your mother, or if they insult any religion, Pope Frank now says that it's ok to wallop children too.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/06/pope-francis-parents-ok-smack-children-dignity

The Guardian wrote:

Francis outlined the traits of a good father: one who forgives but is able to “correct with firmness” while not discouraging the child.

“One time, I heard a father in a meeting with married couples say ‘I sometimes have to smack my children a bit, but never in the face so as to not humiliate them’,” Francis said. “How beautiful.” he added. “He knows the sense of dignity! He has to punish them but does it justly and moves on.”

So, do atheists and agnostics agree? OK to wallop children, whether or not "one protects their dignity"? And what violence is Frank going
to excuse next?

kylith

So the pope says it's ok to hit kids as long as you don't leave a mark anyone can see?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the Catholic Church has vastly misinterpreted the phrase 'suffer the little children'.

Yet the majority of parents will state (in an anonymous poll) that a small slap on the wrist is fine.

It's a belief that many people hold but are afraid to air, for fear of being called abusers.

lazygal

I firmly believe smacking or hitting or physical punishment is wrong and ineffective. I believed this before I had children and I believe it still. It did not work on me as a child. Rather than feeling remorse or regretting for a wrongdoing, when I was smacked I simply resented my parents for it and even as a child I swore if I ever had children I would never hit them. I wouldn't be allowed to physically assault an adult to get a point across or address wrongdoing. Would anyone allow someone else to physically punish their child by smacking them? I doubt it. So why would it ever be ok to do it to your own children?
And if people really do think its ok, why aren't they able to state that publicly? Maybe its because they know deep down it isn't ok, but they go down the old 'never did me any harm' road to square the circle internally.

equivariant

You gotta love pope Frank. He is turning out to be a secularist's dream - keep 'em coming Franky boy.

I wonder if he agrees that it's OK for us menfolk to occasionally 'discipline' our women too? As long as dignity is preserved of course.:p

lazygal

equivariant wrote: »

You gotta love pope Frank - he is turning out to be a secularist's dream - keep 'em coming Franky boy.

I wonder if he agrees that it's OK for us menfolk to occasionally 'discipline' our women too? As long as dignity is preserved of course.:p

http://www.christiandomesticdiscipline.com/

A whole lot of WTF.

Dades

equivariant wrote: »

You gotta love pope Frank. He is turning out to be a secularist's dream - keep 'em coming Franky boy.

I think he's been the opposite, tbh. Far more a lefty than the last one and a lot harder to dislike. I don't hold either of the above statements attributed to him against him, tbh.

The punch in the nose thing is barely a level above banter, and the smacking of children thing cannot be reduced to being either right or wrong as everyone has a different opinion on it. (And is muddied when people use words like "clobber" which implies real violence).

equivariant wrote: »

I wonder if he agrees that it's OK for us menfolk to occasionally 'discipline' our women too? As long as dignity is preserved of course.:p

Really?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

phater phagan

There is absolutely no occasion for which it is acceptable to slap, spank or hit a child - and people who think that it's Ok to do so are creating a culture where violence is to be given credit as a means to an end. Many children who have experienced violence by the hand of parents, relatives etc go on to become violent adults, and the courts are full of cases of assault. My parents never chastised me with violence but a disapproving look or remark from them got through to me and I responded to it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

robindch

Dades wrote: »

And is muddied when people use words like "clobber" which implies real violence.

Not really, or at least not for me. I'm using "clobber" an "wallop" as they're both ambiguous. A more disjunctive term is "assault" which certainly implies the intention to cause hurt.

"Clobber" and "wallop" could conceivably mean anything upwards from friendly prodding, pulled punches to the arms, mild slaps on the posterior, and the kind of thing that's fairly normal in most human relationships - actions which can be read (but need not be read) as the possibility to inflict greater damage, but also the restraint not to.

I've simply no idea what Frank meant by what he said in any of his comments, though his resort to the concept of dignity implies, to me at least, that he's happy to support inflicting a higher level of pain than I think most people here would be.

Daith

Dades wrote: »

and the smacking of children thing cannot be reduced to being either right or wrong as everyone has a different opinion on it. (And is muddied when people use words like "clobber" which implies real violence).

It's also muddled when he's ok with smacking a child as long as it's not the face.

It just reeks of "as long as there's no visible evidence" it's ok.

Surely if you support the idea it shouldn't matter where you smack a child?

Tombo2001

I think you really have to take the 'ignore and move on' approach with this.

The man has never raised a kid. What would he know.

fisgon

lazygal wrote: »

http://www.christiandomesticdiscipline.com/

A whole lot of WTF.

Maybe not quite on topic, but that site is hilarious, chilling and, in the end, pretty dangerous. It's a wife-beaters' haven, God's support for battering your spouse. Very very disturbing.

Cookie_Dough

I don't think it is ever acceptable to hit a child. I'm not a parent (funnily enough either is Francis!) however I am sure there are other, more effective, ways of discipling a child.

Also, I can't understand how you could actually hit a child and do it "respectfully" / "preserving dignity" as stated. I would think it is very degrading and disrespectful to assault a defenceless child or any other human being for that matter. Bizarre statement yet many blind Catholics with refer to this as justification or absolution for hitting their child.

silverharp

Slapping and clobbering sound like 2 very different things . very few would defend anything that could be classed as a beating. I have slapped my son once from memory he was about 4 and ran out into traffic. If I had a logic at the time it was to treat it like touching a hot coal moment , not a punishment. My wife has slapped junior on a few occasions when "negotiations"had broken down and time was an issue.
From observations in public playgrounds i have noticed that some kids from poorer backgrounds get shouted at dragged around and slapped on a very casual basis and I would describe that as poor parenting which might undermine a kids sense of wellbeing.

eviltwin

I'm not a perfect parent but I've managed to get one to adulthood without the need for a slap. I get frustrated with people saying that you need to do it sometimes. You don't need to do anything of the sort. Most parents just won't look at alternatives.

robindch

In terms of intention to hurt, here's how I see the verbs stacking up:

clobber < slap < wallop < smack < hit < punch < assault

And I'm assuming that Frank was speaking in Spanish, where a different set of verbs, and I suppose intentions + meanings, will apply.

lazygal

eviltwin wrote: »

I'm not a perfect parent but I've managed to get one to adulthood with the need for a slap. I get frustrated with people saying that you need to do it sometimes. You don't need to do anything of the sort. Most parents just won't look at alternatives.

Yes, me too. I have seen it on other parenting forums. That the child 'only' got a smack on the hand because he was about to do something or she 'only' got a tap on the leg because she was in danger. I remember even as a very small child (I can't have been more than three or four) being smacked for something and feeling humiliated, rather than that I had learned a lesson. It is lazy and reactive to hit a child, especially when most of us manage to restrain ourselves from hitting an adult no matter how hot coal-esque the situation may be.

_Brian

Deleted User wrote: »

Yet the majority of parents will state (in an anonymous poll) that a small slap on the wrist is fine.

It's a belief that many people hold but are afraid to air, for fear of being called abusers.

There's a poll running over on the journal.ie and 45% of about 6,000 people are agreeing that a little smack is appropriate. Seems the Pope isn't the only person carrying this antiquated notion..

Now, I think its a case that he didn't condemn slapping rather than he said slapping a child is ok, either way it was a poor call.

Teaching a child that problems are solved by hitting people is not on !

I will add that my parents both slapped us as children, looking back I think it was unnecessary but I think no less of my parents because it happened.

Dades

I guess it's all a matter of degrees. It's a bit vague what the Pope means, tbh, so it can be taken to mean anything from a "symbolic" tap on the wrist to a good caning.

I have slapped my son once from memory he was about 4 and ran out into traffic.

Similarly my son very nearly got flattened by a car last year and I remember grabbing him very roughly back from the road. Instinct, fear and trying to ensure the gravity of the lesson take over.

Is grabbing a child roughly in such a scenario akin to a slap that hurts no more than being thrown playfully onto a couch? I just think it's too black and white for people say never ever raise a finger to a child. I don't need to do it at home - my kids are good. But some kids are monsters, lets face it.

I got the odd slap at home and the leather in school, and frankly if you grow up in an loving environment traumatised by that then the issue is elsewhere.

lazygal

Dades wrote: »

I guess it's all a matter of degrees. It's a bit vague what the Pope means, tbh, so it can be taken to mean anything from a "symbolic" tap on the wrist to a good caning.

Similarly my son very nearly got flattened by a car last year and I remember grabbing him very roughly back from the road. Instinct, fear and trying to ensure the gravity of the lesson take over.

Is grabbing a child roughly in such a scenario akin to a slap that hurts no more than being thrown playfully onto a couch? I just think it's too black and white for people say never ever raise a finger to a child. I don't need to do it at home - my kids are good. But some kids are monsters, lets face it.

I got the odd slap at home and the leather in school, and frankly if you grow up in an loving environment traumatised by that then the issue is elsewhere.

Would I grab a friend if they were about to cross a busy road without looking? Absolutely. Would I push my husband to the ground to get him out of danger from a falling object? Definitely. Would I hit either of them to get a point across or as a reaction to the fright they gave me? No way. There is something very odd about the mindset that actually hitting, smacking, or slapping - whatever you call it - it ok when it is done by a parent to his or her child. Suppose you collected a child from a friend's house and the parents told you they had to give your child a smack on the leg to get him to stop doing something? I think most parents would think that was wildly out of line.
I in no way consider myself traumatised and I know most parents do their best, mine included, but I have memories of being smacked and as I have said even at the time I considered it a humiliating thing to do and vowed never to hit my children.

lazygal

lazygal wrote: »

Would I grab a friend if they were about to cross a busy road without looking? Absolutely. Would I push my husband to the ground to get him out of danger from a falling object? Definitely. Would I hit either of them to get a point across or as a reaction to the fright they gave me? No way. There is something very odd about the mindset that actually hitting, smacking, or slapping - whatever you call it - it ok when it is done by a parent to his or her child. Suppose you collected a child from a friend's house and the parents told you they had to give your child a smack on the leg to get him to stop doing something? I think most parents would think that was wildly out of line.
I in no way consider myself traumatised and I know most parents do their best, mine included, but I have memories of being smacked and as I have said even at the time I considered it a humiliating thing to do and vowed never to hit my children.

You have the problem here however that an adult will appreciate the danger that they were in.
Would a child? If they don't appreciate that danger are they likely to do it again without understanding the consequences?

eviltwin

Deleted User wrote: »

You have the problem here however that an adult will appreciate the danger that they were in.
Would a child? If they don't appreciate that danger are they likely to do it again without understanding the consequences?

Is the only way to communicate that message a slap though? That's the point.

You have to tell a child when they do something that is unacceptable, no one is arguing that. Its how you tell them. I don't think physical punishment is the best way. Its not a child's fault they don't understand how the world works, they shouldn't be hurt for that.

Kids aren't stupid, even a young child can learn by more positive means if people would just bother to try them.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

lazygal

Deleted User wrote: »

You have the problem here however that an adult will appreciate the danger that they were in.
Would a child? If they don't appreciate that danger are they likely to do it again without understanding the consequences?

I again repeat that smacking me didn't make me appreciate the consequences of my behaviour. It just made me feel bad and resent my parents, and decide to not inflict this on my own children.
Positive reinforcement works far better. Imagine your boss thinking you weren't able to understand some work related danger because you were new to a job, and that smacking you on the hand would get the message across better than explaining something? Even a very small child can understand positive reinforcement.

lazygal

lazygal wrote: »

I again repeat that smacking me didn't make me appreciate the consequences of my behaviour. It just made me feel bad and resent my parents, and decide to not inflict this on my own children.
Positive reinforcement works far better. Imagine your boss thinking you weren't able to understand some work related danger because you were new to a job, and that smacking you on the hand would get the message across better than explaining something? Even a very small child can understand positive reinforcement.

I'm not saying if it's right or wrong, I honestly don't know. BUT I can see that scenario as something that would make me question it. I remember doing something quite similar and being too young to understand the possibility of what COULD have happened and did it again another time. The second time I got a slap and then I had a message of what WOULD happen.

So there was the abstract potential of danger that I did not comprehend versus the very real actual slap that I would get.
It was the knowledge of the actual slap that made me stop. So I was not slapped out of anger (although I imagine they were angry), I was slapped after being told of potential consequences did not work and I needed a deterrent that I could understand.

eviltwin

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not saying if it's right or wrong, I honestly don't know. BUT I can see that scenario as something that would make me question it. I remember doing something quite similar and being too young to understand the possibility of what COULD have happened and did it again another time. The second time I got a slap and then I had a message of what WOULD happen.

So there was the abstract potential of danger that I did not comprehend versus the very real actual slap that I would get.
It was the knowledge of the actual slap that made me stop

Isn't it better that a child not do something the second time because they know its wrong and know why its wrong rather than they don't do it because they are scared of being hit?

I guess part of the message was given because I could count on one hand, the amount of times it happened, and still have fingers to spare.

It was a shock tactic that worked on me

eviltwin

eviltwin wrote: »

Isn't it better that a child not do something the second time because they know its wrong and know why its wrong rather than they don't do it because they are scared of being hit?

If you read the post at all you would see that I was too young to understand an "invisible" danger.
It had been explained to me but I did not take it on board and I DID do it a second time

SpaceTime

Given the Church's track record with child beating in institutions, I don't think I'll be taking any child rearing advice from them!