Photo by Melvin_Es
Richard Becker recently published an article at Crisis Magazine regarding financial guru Dave Ramsey’s program and how it’s opposed to orthodoxy:
But I’ll be blunt: Dave Ramsey’s system is not for Catholics—or, rather, it’s not for childbearing Catholic couples who take the teaching of the Church seriously. At least that’s what we found out.
There aren’t many things in this world that are mutually exclusive, but apparently Dave Ramsey and faithful Catholics are among them. Of course, I don’t actually believe this, being a fervent Ramsey-program follower, even having volunteered to lead the entire Financial Peace University program at our church, while simultaneously maintaining the state of grace as well as a degree in Theology… but I digress.
Becker continues to lay out a brief history being debt-free until a child strained them financially; he then refers to a caller to Ramsey’s radio show who had seven children and was struggling financially. I’ll quote Becker’s selection from the call:
Dave: The program doesn’t change one ounce. What does change is—and you already knew this long before you met Dave Ramsey—when you choose to have seven children, that is called a lot of financial burden. It’s not a criticism; it’s just a mathematical fact.
You’re not going to be fleet of foot and run from the cheetah because you’re carrying too much.
Setting this as the premise of the rest of the article, Becker takes off on how the Ramsey program is inherently anti-family – or at least, anti-big-Catholic-family. As the author lays it out, it seems pretty evident that Ramsey is doing his best to dope-slap the woman for having too many kids.
Regardless of the context, is Ramsey’s statement about numerous children being a “financial burden” enough to cast out the entire program? I realize that in a spiritual world where the sanctity of human life is constantly challenged and threatened, the term “burden” is almost exclusively applied to children by those promoting abortion, yet from a financial standpoint, children are indeed a financial – what? – expense or liability? What’s the alternative, stating that kids are a financial freedom or relief – does anybody believe that? The point ultimately regresses into semantics about how best to say kids are expensive.
What I find even more concerning is Becker’s assessment the responsibility of spouses regarding children, repeatedly stating that faithful Catholics cannot plan pregnancy. Contrary to what the author might think, children can be morally planned through the practice of, ahem, Natural Family Planning. Indeed, Humanae Vitae does state that “…each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life[,]” but that doesn’t mean that spouses should expect pregnancy every time they express intimacy with each other just that they’re not cutting God out of the deal through artificial means. In essence, every time spouses have sex, they are saying ‘yes’ to the possibility of conception. Yet, in light of this, I know of couples that have refrained from having children through the faithful practice of NFP for 20+ years.
Philosophically speaking, the difference between NFP and artificial birth control is the former calls for zero change to the sexual act, while the latter alters the act through foreign means in an attempt to remove fruitfulness. Practically speaking the former requires self-control, vigilance, planning, communication and understanding while the latter allows for impulse and disregard for the future – kind of like working a budget… or not.
But what of those couples who chose to postpone pregnancy? Becker doesn’t think it’s possible and provides one solution:
But you can’t plan for every contingency, and since Catholics—i.e., Catholics who choose to follow the teaching of the Church forbidding contraception—can’t exactly plan ahead anyway, why not throw caution to the wind, and lean heavily on the Providence of God.
As I said above, the idea that faithful Catholics can’t avoid pregnancy is asinine, especially when NFP is found to be 99.4% effective when utilized properly (much more so than most artificial birth control methods). Unfortunately, it’s this exact mentality and ignorance of NFP which perpetuates the idea that Catholics are unscientific peasants, forced to have huge families by an antiquated Church.
But what of providence? If a couple becomes pregnant, planned to or not, it is God’s Providence that will take care of them, whether they make $1 million or $20,000. But what is providence going to look like? Is carrying a credit card balance with an average interest rate of 15% God’s ideal plan of taking care of someone? I’d say it’s doubtful, but for many people, it’s the only option.
There’s another point I’d like to make – and I’m going to tread extremely lightly here – which carries with it implications to every couple’s specific choices about their family. The moral decision to postpone children is so sensitive to each situation that the Catechism even speaks of it in generalities:
2368: A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood.
There isn’t much instruction beyond “for just reasons,” but one might assume that some of these reasons would be great emotional strain, chronic or severe illness, even a dire economic situation. If a couple cannot afford to raise another child except by incurring debt with no foreseeable end, they still can’t afford it – the creditor can and makes a a living off of those who don’t have two nickles to rub together. When Katie and I were first married, we had read up on Dave Ramsey, but hadn’t done much to implement the principles. Money was very tight, as we had a hefty car payment, multiple student loans, plus various other necessary monthly expenditures. I called a very wise and holy friend and related our situation to him, telling him that it didn’t seem that we could afford to start having children at the time. His advice to me? “Live like paupers until you can afford children.” Enter Dave Ramsey – one of his most frequented sayings is, “Live like no one else so you can live like no one else.” We began living like paupers, minimizing expenses – having our first child while still in debt – and eventually paying off everything but the mortgage, which was not an invitation to start living large. Three kids later, we’re still debt free on a single-income teacher’s salary – we live like no one else which allows us to live like no one else.
What I actually find most regrettable about Becker’s article is that when building the quote, he skipped over the host’s encouragement and answer to the woman:
It slows down you hitting big financial goals or little financial goals because you’ve got this drain on the math. It’s a wonderful drain; it’s a glorious drain, but it’s a drain.
…
It just means that your plan clearly states that you’re going to move slowly. You already knew this instinctively. You’re not going to be fleet of foot and run from the cheetah because you’re carrying too much. You’re going to be a Clydesdale, but the Clydesdale wins.