It is discouraging to find Catholic parents with kids who are clearly never spanked. They are loved and soothed but not confronted with consequences of selfish behavior. These parents have an important obligation to teach their children to “honor your father and mother,” and that should begin as soon as a child is not grasping that. The experiences of Israel in the Old Testament clearly establish a pattern of loving warnings by God and then punishment, with the goal of His people not ruining themselves with sin.
How about, "It is discouraging to find a Catholic parent with kids who are not taught to follow rules and respect their parents?" Why are you equating "never spanked" with permissive parenting?
My children were always commended for good behavior, they were respectful to other adults, they did not seek to bring each other down, and they learned to be regulated human beings. They were never spanked or hit in any manner. Consequences were real in our home, though.
I remember hearing the mom of 13 kids talk at a Catholic conference. Someone asked what her system of discipline was. She said, "It's very simple. Doing the right thing is expected. When a child chooses wrongly, they are asked to correct their error on the spot." That was it. She said that was all she needed. They knew that she meant business (and the father used the same method). Dr. Montessori says we can teach children the ordered, right way of behaving and trust that they will want to follow our example. When needed, use the "rod" as a guide (not a stick to hit them with). This worked in my home.
The original Gershoff study that condemns spanking is flawed. It was responded to by another study by Baumrind, Larzelere, and Cowan.
Basically Gershoff lumped together all forms of physical punishment (mild spanking with severe physical abuse) and also didn’t control for the fact that certain demographics that spank their children more (poor people, high stress households, etc.) also tend to have worse child outcomes in general.
Anecdotally, I’ve noticed that opposition to spanking is primarily ideological. It’s rooted in a distaste for all punishment in general (capital punishment, the doctrine of Hell, spanking, etc) and in an anti-authority mentality.
I was spanked as a child myself and never felt like it harmed my relationship with my mom, my self-esteem, etc. What it did give me was a deep, instinctive, reverent “fear of the Lord” that started with my mom’s office as parent and extended quite naturally to God and all things holy.
I remember as a child watching a classmate tell his mom to “Shut up” and slapping her in the face with a leather glove in front of me. She did nothing, which deeply shocked and disturbed me.
I have never spanked my kids and they are compassionate and helpful and lovely 🤷🏻♀️. My oldest, my son, is 13 now and the feedback I get is, “I would trust that kid with my life”.
(I was spanked as a child and I love my parents but that was unnecessary and they were wrong to do it.)
You may be correct that it was not necessary, but the conclusion doesn't follow, that it was wrong to do it. You really don't know how the parallel universe would be in that world that you were not spanked.
Spanking is a method of punishment, as is time out, as is taking away toys and other things that the child loves. All are forms of punishment. They all work in specific contexts and vary from child to child. All is permissible and moral, so long as it does not cross over into conventionally defined forms of abuse.
Hitting a child sends a different message than taking away a privilege. A parent might categorize both as punishment, but, again, if I ran a red light, hitting me would be a different experience for me than taking away my license. One is a logical consequence and a loss of privilege.
Well that's the thing isn't it? You categorize it as ashes. If you're saying it was wrong and now you say it is ashes, you must be saying there was a detrimental quality to the practice of spanking. It would be more helpful to understand your view then if you were to share with us what negative effect it had on you. If it didn't, then what makes it wrong, or what makes it ashes?
All spanking is wrong, mate. The only exception I might be willing to make is what I would refer to as “kinetic feedback” under dire circumstances in which the caregiver is outnumbered and must prevent an immediate emergency.
Again, contrasting the spanked child who learned "Fear of the Lord" with the child who tells the mother to "shut up" as if there is nothing in between. Firm discipline is not hitting. It is firm, merciful, and consistent. When you use illogical compare/contrast examples, you lose credibility.
Every child is unique. For some they can be corrected by a simple stare. Others require the rod. The objective is constant, but one must remember that the variables are infinite as individuals. The only way to educate a child is to do so in accordance with that child's unique nature.
I padded my backside when I knew I was going to get swatted when my dad got home. I faked tears to shorten the swatting, then resumed serving my restriction in the bedroom. It was really painful to watch my brothers through the window doing all kinds of cool stuff outside. I’ll tell you though, when we filed into church for Sunday Mass, none of us eight ever said a word or clowned around in our pew. We got kinda used to hearing adults saying stuff to ma and pop, “Your kids behaved so well…”
I present a scientific or academic defense of corporal punishment here. The research actually backs it up, and the author above touches on a few of the key features that makes it work.
I think your analysis breaks down at the "real life" level: Increasingly, schools and workplaces are acceding to the soft parenting approach and extending it into the supposed adult years. That's also the case in the realm of "social services" (aka welfare), where recipients receive coaching and enabling rather than firm expectations of attempting to achieve. I have seen it corrode my local community over the past half century and as a result (plus disastrously low birth rates) the work ethic is in danger of disappearing. This anti-God mindset beings in the home, but it doesn't end there.
I thought the same as I read that part. Not only schools and workplaces, but welfare programs, courts, and detention facilities. "Hardship" has been lowered to the slightest obstacle, and virtue is irrelevant to behaviours. Quite frustrating.
Maybe the solution to the crisis in the family that you mentioned--that people don't stay married, etc--is due to a lack of genuine and devout Christianity in our society, not a lack of corporal punishment. In my experience, even mild spankings administered as a loving last resort fed my anger and resentment. When I obeyed it was because it suited me or because I was afraid. The only thing that really changed my relationship with my parents in a substantial way was my conversion to Catholicism when I was thirteen. Despite that being a choice they didn't exactly approve of, they could and did observe that I became more respectful during the very teenage years which are usually described as times of rebellion.
I don't disagree that discipline should be contained with a Christian framework. That is presupposed by this article. I think when the author compares spanking to a punctuation mark rather than a sentence or paragraph, he is getting at the idea that it is part of a larger picture.
That is certainly an important distinction. However, my point was less about the framework surrounding the discipline but about the child's point of view and mindset. If we take my own experience as an example once more, I was certainly raised in a Christian (although Protestant) home and being spanked was absolutely part of a larger picture. But none of the perfect strategies, frameworks, or limits could fully function unless I was personally willing to undergo change. Thus, I would argue that it is more important to attempt as much as possible to infuse daily life with sacrifices for one's children and acts of love than to attempt to "teach" them in ways that they will neither accept nor understand.
While I'm at it, I'd like to ask your opinion on a less often discussed issue surrounding spankings: what about older siblings? What if an older sibling feels (however erroneously, perhaps) morally obligated to interfere and attempt to prevent a younger sibling from being spanked? That definitely creates a moral conflict for the parents, who are faced with the possibility that encouraging their child to do the "right thing" would also be encouraging rebellion against their own authority. On the other hand, if the parents encourage the child to steer clear of interfering, that too carries consequences.
Absolutely true that parents should be seen above all as full of love and sacrifice for their children. If this is somehow sensed, then the discipline appears to be coming from somewhere that is full of loving care, rather than an expression of momentary rage or impatience or unreasonable demands.
I'll admit you've got me stumped about the question of siblings, not having had the experience you describe either in my family of origin or in my own family. But it seems to me that a parent would need to ask the older sibling not to presume to intervene when a parent is trying to do his or her job; such a conversation should happen separately in private.
You raise a vital point: children do need authority, not appeasement. But I wonder if the Christian tradition invites a different kind of authority than we often assume, one that’s therapeutic, not juridical. The early Church Fathers taught that correction is meant to heal the heart, not just control behavior. It’s not about “winning the moment,” but forming the child through calm, dispassionate love. We fast from anger, even when correcting. And when a parent can’t discipline without agitation, the Church gently advises: wait until you can. The “rod” in Proverbs, after all, is also the shepherd’s staff. It guides, steadies... it doesn’t just sting.
I understand the need for authority and boundaries. But my own story taught me how easily discipline turns into anger. Growing up in a very conservative Catholic home, punishment often came in rage—belts, hangers, brambles—and I learned to believe that love and pain always arrived together. As an adult, I repeated that pattern, convinced my anger was justified because my kids “made me feel that way.” It even shaped how I saw God: more judge than healer. But I’ve learned that real discipline doesn’t come from fury or fear. It comes from love that corrects to restore. And that kind of love can be firm, without needing to harm.
There is no inherent reason to connect moderate corporal punishment with anger. Punishing out of anger is something every parenting manual strongly advises against. It is indeed possible to punish calmly, and this is what God Himself does, as Scripture repeats over and over again. We can't ignore the fact that the entire Christian tradition sees a place for corporal punishment; heck, even St. Benedict in the Holy Rule many times recommends it for children and refractory monks!
I agree that calm correction is possible in theory. But in a fallen world, our inner clarity is often compromised. As parents, we shaped by our own wounds, whether we know it or not. And it is easy to believe that we are acting in love, when in fact a reactive part is in the lead. Anger can wear the mask of conviction. Pain can sound like discipline. That’s why articles like this are risky: they assume an inner discernment that, for many of us, hasn’t yet been healed. And that’s not a condemnation. It’s just the reality of life in a world where so many of us were raised by pain masquerading as love.
I agree, and I didn't mean to come across as unsympathetic to your personal story. You are right that people act according as they have been formed, or act out if they have been acted out on, and that this requires serious discernment. This is where I would also say parents have to form a team, they need to talk to each other about discipline, and, in sense, "monitor" one another for accountability, so that nothing untoward slips in. Chances are, they will balance one another out.
The data doesn't support you. Large studies show that spanking not only fails to have positive short term impact, it also causes psychologic harm in children that is long lasting. But of even more importance, the way Jesus treated children doesn't support you. Not what he said about them nor how he behaved toward them. Disappointing article that misleads people into behavior that does not please God.
What data? Does the data split out prudent and infrequent spankings used as last resort from frequent spankings? Does it break things down by faith? Just because Jesus didnt have any children of His own to discipline doesn't mean it is unbiblical to exercise legitimate authority over your children. No one is making the case for beating and abuse, just that spanking is a legitimate tool when all other avenues have been exhausted.
I loved this article and Shane’s comments. I would, however, reframe “last resort.” Spanking should be used as the fulfillment of a promise: “You may not do that; if you do it again, I will spank you.” Last resort implies that the warning, counting to three (which I hated) and times out didn’t work. Way too much time avoiding the consequence! Another thought, borrowed from James Dobson, rip, Christian psychologist: discipline, in any form, should be given for willful disobedience, not for childish irresponsibility.
Finally, I believe that for very young children, “preverbal” if you will, spanking is the only thing that delivers immediate, understandable consequence to defiance. Case in point? Each of my four children received his/her first spanking at seven months for twisting over during diaper changes; after a couple of times turning him back over with a serious, finger-pointing, “NO”, he would glare at me with “The Look” (unmistakeable, non serviam) and flip over. A single slap on that little bare butt with “NO” ended the conflict once and for all.
I agree, when I say last resort I mean that it's really never our go-to if we feel that more diplomatic means can be used to resolve a situation. For some of our kids, time out and taking away privileges is enough to curb bad behavior. For some of our other kids, those methods did not work but spanking has. I hope that makes sense!
I'm surprised - and deeply saddened - by the number of people who don't understand their own faith nor anything Jesus actually said. Did ever once Jesus raise a hand against anyone? No. Did he specifically prescribe not raising a hand against anyone? Yes. Why? Because God, the I Am, is Love. Love finds ways to solve problems that go far beyond anything even minor violence and aggression is ever able to achieve. Spanking demeans both parties. Next time your child acts out, I suggest you ask the Holy Spirit to provide a non aggressive response that is pleasing to Him and meets the emotional and developmental needs of your child. Trust me that He will be quick to provide an answer.
I read that exorcists say demons like spanking? I’m not sure how hitting children gets them to listen? I was spanked by a babysitter that did not have enough bathrooms in her home. she did not have a right to lay a hand on me.
Exorcists can say whatever they want. Hitting a child is different than a prudent spanking. It gets them to listen because it teaches them that there are real consequences to misbehaving. The author lays it out very plainly in his article. It seems you're conflating an abusive babysitter with a legitimate parental authority, which is a silly and obvious mistake frankly.
Thanks for this comment. I should only add that when the article went out this morning, it was mistakenly under my name, but it was written by John Mac Ghlionn.
Neither the author nor I said that "hitting a child is always the right thing to do". We both said it is a legitimate tool to be used prudently and without cruelty. You would recognize, as the author said, that a swift spank is different than a belt beating, correct?
oh yes, definitely. sometimes one little spanking can probably be enough that they will listen for a lifetime. apparently I got a small spanking when I was 10 months old because I pushed a plant over. I don’t remember that because I was a baby.
I have raised seven and am now watching my kids raise kids. It is absolutely baffling to me that intelligent, well-meaning folks equate discipline with corporal punishment. Discipline is a discipling relationship. We discipline the heart to love order by providing firm authority, demanding respect, and being consistent. This can be well-orchestrated WITHOUT hitting a child. I have read countless defenses of hitting, but none have ever convinced me that it is necessary to hit children to form well-behaved, parent-respecting, authority-respecting children. @JoyEDaniels: You equate spanking with discipline by citing ill-behaved children that result from an approach where kids "are clearly never spanked". I challenge you on this. These dysregulated children were not parented well. Perhaps the parents were not consistent or they were over-tired or stressed and lacked follow-through. But if parents hit children, it is not a given that the child will be well-ordered.
Can I suggest that we hold true to a position that agrees that discipline is necessary, but hitting children is not the secret ingredient to form children into God-fearing, well-ordered humans?
@ John Burford :
"Anecdotally, I’ve noticed that opposition to spanking is primarily ideological. It’s rooted in a distaste for all punishment in general (capital punishment, the doctrine of Hell, spanking, etc) and in an anti-authority mentality."
I suspect that your anecdotal research is based upon a small population of families. We moved around with the military, and I saw all kinds of discipline systems. I noticed that the younger a person was when they became a parent, the more likely they were to use corporal punishment on their children. I also noticed that many abandoned hitting when they noticed anger in their child/children.
I am opposed to hitting children, and my ideology is based on the work of Dr. Maria Montessori, a Catholic pioneer in the study of child development and child training. I am decidedly not "anti-punishment". I am an advocate for setting clear boundaries that children are developmentally able to comply with. When my children violated boundaries, there were unpleasant consequences when needed (otherwise known as punishments). Hitting was never one of the consequences.
We want our children to be obedient from their hearts, not compliant out of fear (that's for animal training). We want our children to launch from our homes and respect rightful authority elsewhere.
Interestingly, I was not spanked as a child. My husband was, but sparingly. He remembers being spanked and watching his siblings be spanked. He remembers it making him feel belittled and angry. He said it was not necessary, and he never had an interest in using the method. Though he was a firm (militaristic at times) authority with our family.
If you choose spanking for your children, that's your choice. Please do not use spiritual or theological reasoning to justify that decision. There are as many saints and early Christians who spoke against it as there are for it. Use common sense.
I act badly sometimes (we are all sinners). Hitting me will not motivate me to change my bad behavior. Mercy and firm redirection do motivate me to change (ask my confessor :). Children are younger, less developed, and less capable human beings. Don't overthink this and work yourself into justification.
I always found it funny that parents spank their kids for hitting other kids. Hmmmm. I think it was a well-known saint who said something like, --"Let me be a witness to all (and use words when necessary)."
I learned much from the books, " Parenting with Love and Logic ", and "How to Talk so Kids will Listen" -- also from Barbara Coloroso (can't remember her book title). These books advocate strong discipline systems where authority is clear and consistent. Without hitting.
To be clear, I’m against beating of all kinds, even when someone turns “peace be with you” into a full-blown conversation.
It is discouraging to find Catholic parents with kids who are clearly never spanked. They are loved and soothed but not confronted with consequences of selfish behavior. These parents have an important obligation to teach their children to “honor your father and mother,” and that should begin as soon as a child is not grasping that. The experiences of Israel in the Old Testament clearly establish a pattern of loving warnings by God and then punishment, with the goal of His people not ruining themselves with sin.
How about, "It is discouraging to find a Catholic parent with kids who are not taught to follow rules and respect their parents?" Why are you equating "never spanked" with permissive parenting?
My children were always commended for good behavior, they were respectful to other adults, they did not seek to bring each other down, and they learned to be regulated human beings. They were never spanked or hit in any manner. Consequences were real in our home, though.
I remember hearing the mom of 13 kids talk at a Catholic conference. Someone asked what her system of discipline was. She said, "It's very simple. Doing the right thing is expected. When a child chooses wrongly, they are asked to correct their error on the spot." That was it. She said that was all she needed. They knew that she meant business (and the father used the same method). Dr. Montessori says we can teach children the ordered, right way of behaving and trust that they will want to follow our example. When needed, use the "rod" as a guide (not a stick to hit them with). This worked in my home.
The original Gershoff study that condemns spanking is flawed. It was responded to by another study by Baumrind, Larzelere, and Cowan.
Basically Gershoff lumped together all forms of physical punishment (mild spanking with severe physical abuse) and also didn’t control for the fact that certain demographics that spank their children more (poor people, high stress households, etc.) also tend to have worse child outcomes in general.
Anecdotally, I’ve noticed that opposition to spanking is primarily ideological. It’s rooted in a distaste for all punishment in general (capital punishment, the doctrine of Hell, spanking, etc) and in an anti-authority mentality.
I was spanked as a child myself and never felt like it harmed my relationship with my mom, my self-esteem, etc. What it did give me was a deep, instinctive, reverent “fear of the Lord” that started with my mom’s office as parent and extended quite naturally to God and all things holy.
I remember as a child watching a classmate tell his mom to “Shut up” and slapping her in the face with a leather glove in front of me. She did nothing, which deeply shocked and disturbed me.
Thank you for this comment, it adds a lot of clarity.
I have never spanked my kids and they are compassionate and helpful and lovely 🤷🏻♀️. My oldest, my son, is 13 now and the feedback I get is, “I would trust that kid with my life”.
(I was spanked as a child and I love my parents but that was unnecessary and they were wrong to do it.)
You may be correct that it was not necessary, but the conclusion doesn't follow, that it was wrong to do it. You really don't know how the parallel universe would be in that world that you were not spanked.
Spanking is a method of punishment, as is time out, as is taking away toys and other things that the child loves. All are forms of punishment. They all work in specific contexts and vary from child to child. All is permissible and moral, so long as it does not cross over into conventionally defined forms of abuse.
Hitting a child sends a different message than taking away a privilege. A parent might categorize both as punishment, but, again, if I ran a red light, hitting me would be a different experience for me than taking away my license. One is a logical consequence and a loss of privilege.
If anything good came from me being spanked as a child, it’s only because God is masterful at making beauty from ashes.
Well that's the thing isn't it? You categorize it as ashes. If you're saying it was wrong and now you say it is ashes, you must be saying there was a detrimental quality to the practice of spanking. It would be more helpful to understand your view then if you were to share with us what negative effect it had on you. If it didn't, then what makes it wrong, or what makes it ashes?
All spanking is wrong, mate. The only exception I might be willing to make is what I would refer to as “kinetic feedback” under dire circumstances in which the caregiver is outnumbered and must prevent an immediate emergency.
Thank you for your comments D.L. I appreciate the frankness.
Again, contrasting the spanked child who learned "Fear of the Lord" with the child who tells the mother to "shut up" as if there is nothing in between. Firm discipline is not hitting. It is firm, merciful, and consistent. When you use illogical compare/contrast examples, you lose credibility.
Every child is unique. For some they can be corrected by a simple stare. Others require the rod. The objective is constant, but one must remember that the variables are infinite as individuals. The only way to educate a child is to do so in accordance with that child's unique nature.
I padded my backside when I knew I was going to get swatted when my dad got home. I faked tears to shorten the swatting, then resumed serving my restriction in the bedroom. It was really painful to watch my brothers through the window doing all kinds of cool stuff outside. I’ll tell you though, when we filed into church for Sunday Mass, none of us eight ever said a word or clowned around in our pew. We got kinda used to hearing adults saying stuff to ma and pop, “Your kids behaved so well…”
Amazing!!!
This was a good read.
Thank you!
I present a scientific or academic defense of corporal punishment here. The research actually backs it up, and the author above touches on a few of the key features that makes it work.
https://open.substack.com/pub/lgonzaga/p/is-spanking-your-kids-a-form-of-abuse?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=2g814i
Excellent. There is BIBLICAL support :”spare the rod spoil the child”
Research the use of the rod -- it was a guide, not a stick to beat the child with.
I think your analysis breaks down at the "real life" level: Increasingly, schools and workplaces are acceding to the soft parenting approach and extending it into the supposed adult years. That's also the case in the realm of "social services" (aka welfare), where recipients receive coaching and enabling rather than firm expectations of attempting to achieve. I have seen it corrode my local community over the past half century and as a result (plus disastrously low birth rates) the work ethic is in danger of disappearing. This anti-God mindset beings in the home, but it doesn't end there.
I thought the same as well. When we read in the news a criminal was released 72 times prior it’s shocking.
I thought the same as I read that part. Not only schools and workplaces, but welfare programs, courts, and detention facilities. "Hardship" has been lowered to the slightest obstacle, and virtue is irrelevant to behaviours. Quite frustrating.
Maybe the solution to the crisis in the family that you mentioned--that people don't stay married, etc--is due to a lack of genuine and devout Christianity in our society, not a lack of corporal punishment. In my experience, even mild spankings administered as a loving last resort fed my anger and resentment. When I obeyed it was because it suited me or because I was afraid. The only thing that really changed my relationship with my parents in a substantial way was my conversion to Catholicism when I was thirteen. Despite that being a choice they didn't exactly approve of, they could and did observe that I became more respectful during the very teenage years which are usually described as times of rebellion.
I don't disagree that discipline should be contained with a Christian framework. That is presupposed by this article. I think when the author compares spanking to a punctuation mark rather than a sentence or paragraph, he is getting at the idea that it is part of a larger picture.
That is certainly an important distinction. However, my point was less about the framework surrounding the discipline but about the child's point of view and mindset. If we take my own experience as an example once more, I was certainly raised in a Christian (although Protestant) home and being spanked was absolutely part of a larger picture. But none of the perfect strategies, frameworks, or limits could fully function unless I was personally willing to undergo change. Thus, I would argue that it is more important to attempt as much as possible to infuse daily life with sacrifices for one's children and acts of love than to attempt to "teach" them in ways that they will neither accept nor understand.
While I'm at it, I'd like to ask your opinion on a less often discussed issue surrounding spankings: what about older siblings? What if an older sibling feels (however erroneously, perhaps) morally obligated to interfere and attempt to prevent a younger sibling from being spanked? That definitely creates a moral conflict for the parents, who are faced with the possibility that encouraging their child to do the "right thing" would also be encouraging rebellion against their own authority. On the other hand, if the parents encourage the child to steer clear of interfering, that too carries consequences.
Thoughts?
Absolutely true that parents should be seen above all as full of love and sacrifice for their children. If this is somehow sensed, then the discipline appears to be coming from somewhere that is full of loving care, rather than an expression of momentary rage or impatience or unreasonable demands.
I'll admit you've got me stumped about the question of siblings, not having had the experience you describe either in my family of origin or in my own family. But it seems to me that a parent would need to ask the older sibling not to presume to intervene when a parent is trying to do his or her job; such a conversation should happen separately in private.
To Bend the Will as opposed to Breaking the Spirit.
You raise a vital point: children do need authority, not appeasement. But I wonder if the Christian tradition invites a different kind of authority than we often assume, one that’s therapeutic, not juridical. The early Church Fathers taught that correction is meant to heal the heart, not just control behavior. It’s not about “winning the moment,” but forming the child through calm, dispassionate love. We fast from anger, even when correcting. And when a parent can’t discipline without agitation, the Church gently advises: wait until you can. The “rod” in Proverbs, after all, is also the shepherd’s staff. It guides, steadies... it doesn’t just sting.
I understand the need for authority and boundaries. But my own story taught me how easily discipline turns into anger. Growing up in a very conservative Catholic home, punishment often came in rage—belts, hangers, brambles—and I learned to believe that love and pain always arrived together. As an adult, I repeated that pattern, convinced my anger was justified because my kids “made me feel that way.” It even shaped how I saw God: more judge than healer. But I’ve learned that real discipline doesn’t come from fury or fear. It comes from love that corrects to restore. And that kind of love can be firm, without needing to harm.
There is no inherent reason to connect moderate corporal punishment with anger. Punishing out of anger is something every parenting manual strongly advises against. It is indeed possible to punish calmly, and this is what God Himself does, as Scripture repeats over and over again. We can't ignore the fact that the entire Christian tradition sees a place for corporal punishment; heck, even St. Benedict in the Holy Rule many times recommends it for children and refractory monks!
I agree that calm correction is possible in theory. But in a fallen world, our inner clarity is often compromised. As parents, we shaped by our own wounds, whether we know it or not. And it is easy to believe that we are acting in love, when in fact a reactive part is in the lead. Anger can wear the mask of conviction. Pain can sound like discipline. That’s why articles like this are risky: they assume an inner discernment that, for many of us, hasn’t yet been healed. And that’s not a condemnation. It’s just the reality of life in a world where so many of us were raised by pain masquerading as love.
I agree, and I didn't mean to come across as unsympathetic to your personal story. You are right that people act according as they have been formed, or act out if they have been acted out on, and that this requires serious discernment. This is where I would also say parents have to form a team, they need to talk to each other about discipline, and, in sense, "monitor" one another for accountability, so that nothing untoward slips in. Chances are, they will balance one another out.
And there is no inherent reason to connect firm parenting with the practice of hitting a child.
The data doesn't support you. Large studies show that spanking not only fails to have positive short term impact, it also causes psychologic harm in children that is long lasting. But of even more importance, the way Jesus treated children doesn't support you. Not what he said about them nor how he behaved toward them. Disappointing article that misleads people into behavior that does not please God.
What data? Does the data split out prudent and infrequent spankings used as last resort from frequent spankings? Does it break things down by faith? Just because Jesus didnt have any children of His own to discipline doesn't mean it is unbiblical to exercise legitimate authority over your children. No one is making the case for beating and abuse, just that spanking is a legitimate tool when all other avenues have been exhausted.
I loved this article and Shane’s comments. I would, however, reframe “last resort.” Spanking should be used as the fulfillment of a promise: “You may not do that; if you do it again, I will spank you.” Last resort implies that the warning, counting to three (which I hated) and times out didn’t work. Way too much time avoiding the consequence! Another thought, borrowed from James Dobson, rip, Christian psychologist: discipline, in any form, should be given for willful disobedience, not for childish irresponsibility.
Finally, I believe that for very young children, “preverbal” if you will, spanking is the only thing that delivers immediate, understandable consequence to defiance. Case in point? Each of my four children received his/her first spanking at seven months for twisting over during diaper changes; after a couple of times turning him back over with a serious, finger-pointing, “NO”, he would glare at me with “The Look” (unmistakeable, non serviam) and flip over. A single slap on that little bare butt with “NO” ended the conflict once and for all.
I agree, when I say last resort I mean that it's really never our go-to if we feel that more diplomatic means can be used to resolve a situation. For some of our kids, time out and taking away privileges is enough to curb bad behavior. For some of our other kids, those methods did not work but spanking has. I hope that makes sense!
egads. Please read a solid source on child development.
First paragraph: tentative agreement.
Second paragraph: No no no no no....it is never OK to hit a baby...
Honestly, I recommend you do your own homework on this. There are 50 years of studies available to choose from. Many large scale.
I've never seen a study with those nuances like I have detailed, which is why I asked what widely accessible studies you knew of that did.
There are 50 years of studies on this. I encourage you to Google them.
I prefer scripture over academic vomit.
And yet scripture is pretty clear. Where the NT conflicts with the OT, it's the NT. Sermon on the Mount should help you out there.
The NT does not conflict with the OT. Just say no to Marcionism.
I'm surprised - and deeply saddened - by the number of people who don't understand their own faith nor anything Jesus actually said. Did ever once Jesus raise a hand against anyone? No. Did he specifically prescribe not raising a hand against anyone? Yes. Why? Because God, the I Am, is Love. Love finds ways to solve problems that go far beyond anything even minor violence and aggression is ever able to achieve. Spanking demeans both parties. Next time your child acts out, I suggest you ask the Holy Spirit to provide a non aggressive response that is pleasing to Him and meets the emotional and developmental needs of your child. Trust me that He will be quick to provide an answer.
I read that exorcists say demons like spanking? I’m not sure how hitting children gets them to listen? I was spanked by a babysitter that did not have enough bathrooms in her home. she did not have a right to lay a hand on me.
Exorcists can say whatever they want. Hitting a child is different than a prudent spanking. It gets them to listen because it teaches them that there are real consequences to misbehaving. The author lays it out very plainly in his article. It seems you're conflating an abusive babysitter with a legitimate parental authority, which is a silly and obvious mistake frankly.
Thanks for this comment. I should only add that when the article went out this morning, it was mistakenly under my name, but it was written by John Mac Ghlionn.
Edited to reflect that!
I just think hitting a child is not always the right thing to do.
Neither the author nor I said that "hitting a child is always the right thing to do". We both said it is a legitimate tool to be used prudently and without cruelty. You would recognize, as the author said, that a swift spank is different than a belt beating, correct?
oh yes, definitely. sometimes one little spanking can probably be enough that they will listen for a lifetime. apparently I got a small spanking when I was 10 months old because I pushed a plant over. I don’t remember that because I was a baby.
And this requires loyalty and dedication on your part.
I have raised seven and am now watching my kids raise kids. It is absolutely baffling to me that intelligent, well-meaning folks equate discipline with corporal punishment. Discipline is a discipling relationship. We discipline the heart to love order by providing firm authority, demanding respect, and being consistent. This can be well-orchestrated WITHOUT hitting a child. I have read countless defenses of hitting, but none have ever convinced me that it is necessary to hit children to form well-behaved, parent-respecting, authority-respecting children. @JoyEDaniels: You equate spanking with discipline by citing ill-behaved children that result from an approach where kids "are clearly never spanked". I challenge you on this. These dysregulated children were not parented well. Perhaps the parents were not consistent or they were over-tired or stressed and lacked follow-through. But if parents hit children, it is not a given that the child will be well-ordered.
Can I suggest that we hold true to a position that agrees that discipline is necessary, but hitting children is not the secret ingredient to form children into God-fearing, well-ordered humans?
@ John Burford :
"Anecdotally, I’ve noticed that opposition to spanking is primarily ideological. It’s rooted in a distaste for all punishment in general (capital punishment, the doctrine of Hell, spanking, etc) and in an anti-authority mentality."
I suspect that your anecdotal research is based upon a small population of families. We moved around with the military, and I saw all kinds of discipline systems. I noticed that the younger a person was when they became a parent, the more likely they were to use corporal punishment on their children. I also noticed that many abandoned hitting when they noticed anger in their child/children.
I am opposed to hitting children, and my ideology is based on the work of Dr. Maria Montessori, a Catholic pioneer in the study of child development and child training. I am decidedly not "anti-punishment". I am an advocate for setting clear boundaries that children are developmentally able to comply with. When my children violated boundaries, there were unpleasant consequences when needed (otherwise known as punishments). Hitting was never one of the consequences.
We want our children to be obedient from their hearts, not compliant out of fear (that's for animal training). We want our children to launch from our homes and respect rightful authority elsewhere.
Interestingly, I was not spanked as a child. My husband was, but sparingly. He remembers being spanked and watching his siblings be spanked. He remembers it making him feel belittled and angry. He said it was not necessary, and he never had an interest in using the method. Though he was a firm (militaristic at times) authority with our family.
If you choose spanking for your children, that's your choice. Please do not use spiritual or theological reasoning to justify that decision. There are as many saints and early Christians who spoke against it as there are for it. Use common sense.
I act badly sometimes (we are all sinners). Hitting me will not motivate me to change my bad behavior. Mercy and firm redirection do motivate me to change (ask my confessor :). Children are younger, less developed, and less capable human beings. Don't overthink this and work yourself into justification.
I always found it funny that parents spank their kids for hitting other kids. Hmmmm. I think it was a well-known saint who said something like, --"Let me be a witness to all (and use words when necessary)."
I learned much from the books, " Parenting with Love and Logic ", and "How to Talk so Kids will Listen" -- also from Barbara Coloroso (can't remember her book title). These books advocate strong discipline systems where authority is clear and consistent. Without hitting.