How we're populating the earth...

We went to the Denver Museum of Natural History yesterday, seven of my children, one little friend, and my brother, Dave, and I. We have a museum membership as it takes only two or three visits a year to pay for itself. But, we made a miscalcuation and didn't check the website before we planned the trip. If we'd looked, we'd have seen that yesterday was a "free day" and everyone in the world had planned to be there. Gack. We like it much better when we can park right up front and the halls are so deserted that our chatter echos.

But, yesterday we were bumping elbows with the whole Denver metro population. Nice folks, for the most part. Generally, people who want to go to the museum are a good sort, and we all get along with one another very well. At one point, though, shuffling through the crowd, the Littles and I got separated from our group of bigger kids who were getting the scholarly tour of the dinosaur pavilion from my paleantologically inclined brother, so we parked the stroller in a little nook outside the "bone" rooms to wait. The six children and I chatted, I texted with my brother to check on their progress, and scores of people passed by enjoying the exhibits, involved in their own worlds. Except one pair of older ladies.

I couldn't help noticing them eyeing us as they passed. And I couldn't help hearing their passing comment, because I suspect it was meant to be heard. One said to the other, and I quote: "Yes, they look like they're all hers. Isn't that horrendous?"

Ha! I didn't even have all my kids with me! But, I didn't say anything.

Now, some years ago, these ladies' comment would have made me angry. I've been hearing this kind of thing for over fifteen years now, ever since our family broke the acceptability level of three children, but over the years its effect on me has changed. It doesn't make me angry any more. I don't feel the urge to make a biting, sarcastic retort. No, these days it makes me feel sad.

It makes me sad that these two older women (in their sixties) didn't know, first of all, that if you're going to gossip, you should at least have the courtesy not to gossip where the gossipee can hear you. (Sheesh!)

Second of all, it saddens me that, in the tradition of gossip, they jumped to so many conclusions, not just about our individual situation, but about big families, in general.

And the saddest thing is that this conception is practically universal. It's heart-breaking that so many people tolerate the sins of abortion, homosexuality, promiscuity, etc, then complain about the high incidence of violent crime, including rape, and whine about today's crop of lazy, irresponsible, addicted young people. They don't see the connection between the accepted modern mindset, which teaches all the reasons for limiting family-size, and all the evils that come from the same humanistic religion.

Isn't it odd that modern humanism in its singular backward way teaches that people are both the most and least important cog in the universe? Everything revolves around improving our life on this planet, and yet life in itself has no value. The selfish needs of the individual, globalized into materialism and earth-worship, have eclipsed any care for the soul (the real good) of the people of the world, generally or specifically.

So now, in a typically ironic way, our society considers having a large family a selfish act.

You see how they come to this, don't you? Modern society teaches that the earth is more important than children. You've heard the mantra: We can't further burden what they conceive to be an already overburdened planet. To be amazed at what they really think, check this article out. And then, see here and here for excellent explanations of why this myth is exactly that ~ myth.

Then, of course, the world teaches that things are more important than children. A great emphasis is placed on what many call a "quality" of life, which can only be enjoyed by a family of one or two children. Without expensive vacations, cutting edge gadgets, big screen tvs, and palacial McMansions to live in, children will grow up deprived, they say. So, in order to afford these things, they limit their children to no more than 2.5 hatchlings per household, and then both parents work conscientiously long hours -- and deprive their children of the one thing they most need and want: their parents' time.

We've all seen how the world teaches that convenience is more important than children. Raising more than two children is not only expensive, but it's challenging ~ and terribly inconvenient. (The remark we hear for that one is: What are you, crazy?) There really is no question about it. A person who wants the world to revolve around him or her will find great inconvenience in raising more than a matched set of children. Raising more requires purposeful efficiency, planning, patience, tolerance, and self sacrifice.

The irony is that these are all the attributes population-zero people would like us all to exhibit toward its most currently popular end of "saving the planet," but would never consider positive attributes put toward raising a half dozen like-minded future voters. That idea is not only inconvenient, but dangerous in the mind of today's eco-religious. Much of our "green" world is willing to forego the convenience of anything that produces waste products, including the water required for flushing toilets for the good of the planet but can't imagine living on less in order to nurture and support a generous-sized family. It seems that today any inconvenience can and should be tolerated to preserve our natural resources...

All natural resources, except our greatest resource ~ our children.

And the most rare, the most precious-resource children that I know are ones that are brought up understanding first hand, the Godly prudence of conservation, the reward of self-sacrifice, the necessity of patience, the value of charity, and the desire for proper justice to those who don't play by the rules. And, though these virtues can be found in children of any family size, they thrive in big families. Not only that, they grow deep roots and spread great canopies. Children from big, happy families blossom in ingenuity, creativity, generosity, and love. They are almost always givers. They enrich the world. They populate heaven.

I'm sure those two little old ladies would be able to cite examples of big, impoverished, welfare families that would make a mockery of this statement. And, it's a sad truth that they're out there. But, I could, in turn, point out a nation full of self-centered, spoiled, rudderless people from small families that has had hardly a chance to learn better. There are worse kinds of deprivation than not getting to go to Disney World as a child.

But, I wouldn't do that. Even though it looks like I just did that very thing, I wouldn't really point my finger. For one thing, I just don't have the heart to argue about it any more. And seriously, we big family folks don't point our fingers at little families in derision. Have you ever seen any of us do that? We love families ~ all families, big and small. But it makes me sad that parents of large families (and their children) have to hear this kind of abuse about something so integral to our belief systems. It'd sure be nice if a world that preaches tolerance to every evil could squeeze out a little tolerance for a family that exceeds the norm. But, it'd be nicer still if the world would understand that a value for life and a love for integrity, the standard under which many big families march, produces darn good people.

Lots of them.

(Do you see now why I can't make pithy biting retorts? It takes me 13 paragraphs to get it all out.)

Famous people with or from big families:

Benjamin Franklin was one of ten children

Mark Wahlberg is one of nine children

St. Catherine of Siena was the youngest of twenty-five children

Frank and Lillian Gilbreth were the parents of twelve children

Queen Victoria had nine royal children

Stephen Colbert is one of eleven children

Celine Dion is the youngest of fourteen siblings

Johann Sebastian Bach had twenty children altogether

Danielle Steele has nine children

Justice Antonin Scalia, himself an only child, is the father of nine children

Mel Gibson has seven children

Queen St. Margaret of Scotland was the mother of eight children, one a canonized saint.

For more information

and some big-family inspiration:

Check out this scientific study on children from large families vs. small families and their behavior in a school setting.

This rabbi's take on his large family is heartening.

Kim at Starry Sky Ranch stated it perfectly a while back. (Bless Kim's decision to get away from blogging right now, but I miss her wise and insightful posts!)

And Jennifer at Conversion Diary has some great links and thoughts on the subject, as well.

H/T: to Jackie at Catholic Mom of 10 who provided the Patrick Madrid link, a Catholic perspective on overpopulation. Jackie (who's on vacation right now) is also writing about this topic these days.